Turns out Obama was right!

Dungheap said:
Did you notice how SF chimed in and turned the attention to Alias after I pointed out that Damo and Alias are playing off the same sheet? The Damo-SF relationship is so romantic. Alias just wants to be involved somehow, even if it's just as the foil SF uses to protect his man.
Click to expand...

Hey douche bag... pull your head out of your ass and realize that ALIAS was the one who first claimed that it had to do with bene's. I corrected him. Then I saw him post a second comment to you saying the same thing, so I corrected him again. I didn't notice your comment or Damo's. But nice of you to show how obsessed you are with creating imaginary scenarios.

Next time try reading the entire thread. Then maybe, just maybe, you won't appear to be ditzie's level of stupid.
 
Superfreak said:
Hey douche bag... pull your head out of your ass and realize that ALIAS was the one who first claimed that it had to do with bene's. I corrected him. Then I saw him post a second comment to you saying the same thing, so I corrected him again. I didn't notice your comment or Damo's. But nice of you to show how obsessed you are with creating imaginary scenarios.

Next time try reading the entire thread. Then maybe, just maybe, you won't appear to be ditzie's level of stupid.
Click to expand...


 
Damocles said:
This ignores the (often ignored nowadays) requirement that those on unemployment seek employment. Those on the roles of unemployment are assumed to be looking, because they are required to do so...

Basically what I had stated was, since they no longer get unemployment and are no longer seeking they are no longer counted on the unemployment statistics.

Ignoring pieces of reality that are negative may "help" some people believe things are going good, but the number of people dropping from the roles (that no longer actively seek employment) is adjusted for those expected to retire, this number therefore reflects over 300,000 that simply gave up, but also no longer can receive unemployment (as they are assumed to be looking).
Click to expand...

It is a survey. Just as consumer confidence is. While it is true that those on unemployment must be looking for work, it still has nothing to do with how the rate is calculated.

Read the link I provided if you would as it explains in far greater detail why they use the survey method vs any other measure.
 
Dungheap said:
yes, I am a douche bag. Had I actually read the thread I would see that you didn't do as I said. Had I paid attention I would have seen that out of the people on the thread, I was the one that received your 'defense'. Not Damo. You see, I am obsessed with Damo and thus I must try to paint you two as lovers. I do this because it allows me to express my feelings towards Damo while pretending they are your feelings. Either that or I just think it is somehow an insult to insinuate you two are gay. I really don't know which it is because my Dem masters haven't told me what to think yet today and so I am a rambling mess. I can't help being a douche bag. It is my job. That is why I am so firmly planted up the Dems collective asses. It gives them a slightly cleaner feel.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing.
 
Superfreak said:
It is a survey. Just as consumer confidence is. While it is true that those on unemployment must be looking for work, it still has nothing to do with how the rate is calculated.

Read the link I provided if you would as it explains in far greater detail why they use the survey method vs any other measure.
Click to expand...
Again, I'll point out that those on Unemployment are required to be looking so that fact that they "are looking" is a factor in that survey. That I extrapolate that those on unemployment "are looking", that means the 300,000 are not those expected to retire (the numbers are adjusted from that), are not on unemployment (because they are 'looking'), and would normally be working if they hadn't given up doesn't change how the survey is taken. It is simply an exercise of logic using available data.

The assumption that I assumed that they weren't counted because they dropped from the role of unemployment is a poor one, the one that I made that those 300,000 no longer receive unemployment is not, because if they did they are required to be actively seeking.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm probably the one one who clicked on youtube and watched that whole video. God that song is so stupid. I was laughing for the first half of it, but then it started pissing me off.
 
BY the way, Damo, do you have a link that says that the BLS controls for those expected to retire for purposes of determining the change in the labor market participation rate?
 
Dungheap said:
BY the way, Damo, do you have a link that says that the BLS controls for those expected to retire for purposes of determining the change in the labor market participation rate?
Click to expand...

http://www.investinganswers.com/financial-dictionary/economics/unemployment-rate-809

Second paragraph, second sentence, last two words:

It is important to distinguish between the percentage of people who are unemployed and those who are simply not working. Some people may be in school full-time, working in the home, disabled, or retired. These people are not considered part of the labor force and are therefore not included in the unemployment rate. Only those people actively looking for a job or waiting to return to a job are considered unemployed.
Click to expand...
 
Darla said:
I guess I'm probably the one one who clicked on youtube and watched that whole video. God that song is so stupid. I was laughing for the first half of it, but then it started pissing me off.
Click to expand...

It's great in the "Blues Brothers," though.

I didn't click on it, but I did crack up when I saw it. It does kind of sum up the Damo/SF dynamic.
 
Damocles said:
http://www.investinganswers.com/financial-dictionary/economics/unemployment-rate-809

Second paragraph, second sentence, last two words:
Click to expand...


I understand how the unemployment rate is calculated. The 300,000 people you are talking about are the people that are not considered part of the labor market because they aren't looking. Your claim, as far as I understand it, is that the 300,000 figure does not include retirees, it means 300,000 people stopped looking for work in addition to expected retirees. Am I misunderstanding you?
 
Darla said:
We posted just about the same thing! It was the "I was just about to post that" that really got me too! Jinx.
Click to expand...

you can't jinx me on that. Mine was succinct and to the point. Like a true liberal, yours just rambled on and on and on and on. It was also very angry and uncouth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top