What Does AOC Have That Boebert Does Not?

Gondwanaland said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Does it show HOW that person is employed beyond full, temp or part time? Remember, businesses also report their employment/unemployment rate as part of the mix. AND the official reports always couch everything with the word "estimates".

Let me explain it to you in a manner you'll find acceptable: remember when Obama touted that the near recession that was the Bush legacy was over because employment was up as reported by businesses? The GOP retort was that those jobs were NOT of the same quality as the ones previously held (lower salaries, more part-time and temp, less benefits). They made the DISTINCTION to counter the official tallied facts that jobs were being filled and the horizon was brighter. All I'm doing here is applying to same scrutiny to the ACTUAL employment/unemployment rate.
Click to expand...


It does, actually. There are unemployment stats for 'underemployed', etc.. But again, the stats would report that one person is employed and that 9 are unemployed. Not what you claimed.
Click to expand...

Actually, I stated AS FACT that nowhere in any of the links provided by Rick Saunders is the distinction made that 3 jobs are held by one person, and therefore the numbers of employed (as reported by businesses) is skewed as to the number unemployed (and yes, like it or not the unemployment insurance stats by the DOL play a part in the equation, as one of my links shows). Only the IRS has the records for how many jobs one actually has. Also, could you please point to the report and page where "under employed" is listed and how?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Your insults and basic repetition display your waning ability to prove your case, or disprove what I say. Pay attention to what you source, Rick. Again, the Census questions DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT MULTIPLE JOBS HELD BY ONE PERSON. Essentially, this can lead to a more positive report.

Only residents who are in the labor force are counted in the unemployment rate. Someone who does not have a job but claims they are not looking for one is considered out of the labor force and is not counted in the unemployment rate. Economists call members of this group "discouraged workers." https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an...ulate-unemployment-rate-published-monthly.asp


But the kicker is this:

The Unemployment Insurance weekly claims data are used in current economic analysis of unemployment trends in the nation, and in each state

https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp
Click to expand...
I give you links to the actual entities that do the reports and then you give links to investipedia? I'll stick with the Bureau of Labor and their description of how they calculate unemployment and where they state why no one should use their numbers they way you are. They aren't "census" questions since the Census Bureau has nothing to do with the monthly unemployment numbers. Most people in the know don't just look at the U3 numbers even though those are the number most reported by the media. Do you even know what that U6 unemployment is compared to the U3? By the way investopedia supports my claim about discouraged workers which is in direct contradiction of your claim, "I think you would be hard pressed to actually find people who "just stopped looking for work" as our MSM has periodically stated in the last few decades."

Everyone uses the numbers. Everyone with any sense knows that the numbers are different and can't be used interchangeably. An increase in unemployment claims doesn't mean that that unemployment rate is going up since unemployment doesn't count discouraged workers. Your previous statements show you don't know much about how anyone uses the unemployment numbers. I have been using them for over 20 years. I see you don't want to be educated because you are convinced you know more than anyone else. Good luck with that in life.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Actually, I stated AS FACT that nowhere in any of the links provided by Rick Saunders is the distinction made that 3 jobs are held by one person, and therefore the numbers of employed (as reported by businesses) is skewed as to the number unemployed (and yes, like it or not the unemployment insurance stats by the DOL play a part in the equation, as one of my links shows). Only the IRS has the records for how many jobs one actually has. Also, could you please point to the report and page where "under employed" is listed and how?
Click to expand...

There you go again, trying to combine the different reports on employment to say that one is skewed BECAUSE of another one. No such thing can happen in the real world for people that actually understand what each report says. You keep claiming the numbers of employed as reported by businesses. There is no report by "BUSINESS" that says who is employed. You are making up a report that doesn't exist in the real world. ADP is not reporting on its employees. It is reporting on the payrolls of the business that use ADP. That is then used as a basis to estimate the rest of the business that don't use ADP. There is no report by businesses of the number of people they employ!!! That is your made up nonsense.

The IRS does NOT have the records of how many jobs one actually has. The IRS has the record of how many jobs are withholding taxes. That is not the same thing as the number of jobs one has. I could work 100 jobs for cash and the IRS would never know that I had those jobs.


Also, could you please point to the report and page where "under employed" is listed and how?
Click to expand...
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm Are you willing to educate yourself on U5 and U6?
 
Gondwanaland said:
Did you include when AOC pretended she had gotten arrested, and then forgot to keep her hands behind her like she'd been handcuffed and raised a fist?:laugh:
Click to expand...

AOC was arrested, and given a $50 fine. The police saw no need to handcuff her, because unlike the Boeberts, she was not drunk and belligerent.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ted-during-protest-supreme-court/10117539002/

AOC graduated cum laude with a dual major. Boebert flunked out of high school... Let that sink in, she was so stupid, she could not make it through high school.
 
Boebert runs a restaurant.

So go figure:

The restaurant has been written up for health code violations.

If only she had gotten a better education she might have known better.
 
Hello Walt,

Walt said:
AOC was arrested, and given a $50 fine. The police saw no need to handcuff her, because unlike the Boeberts, she was not drunk and belligerent.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ted-during-protest-supreme-court/10117539002/

AOC graduated cum laude with a dual major. Boebert flunked out of high school... Let that sink in, she was so stupid, she could not make it through high school.
Click to expand...

AOC pulled a John Lewis - she got into 'good trouble.' She was arrested outside the Supreme Court for protesting the overturning of Roe v Wade. Her crime was sitting down in the street to draw attention to the outrageous decision. Good on her!
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch,

That would not surprise me one little bit. She thinks law enforcement is a nuisance and a hindrance to her 'freedom' - to break laws!
Click to expand...

The Qless, be they elected or not, will not do well when this all comes down.

Anyone who supported the overthrow of the US government, either physically or materially, will be crushed and either sent to prison or the poor house.
 
Hello Trumpet,

Trumpet said:
integrity
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And true patriotism. The spirit of public service - for the people.

It's like these two women exemplify the spirits of the right and the left.

Boebert working against the system in the spirit of opposing government, AOC working for the people, for society, thinking of what is best for the USA.
 
Last edited:
PoliTalker said:
AOC pulled a John Lewis - she got into 'good trouble.' She was arrested outside the Supreme Court for protesting the overturning of Roe v Wade. Her crime was sitting down in the street to draw attention to the outrageous decision. Good on her!
Click to expand...

There are different pieces of advice, depending on how prevalent guns are. In situations where there are not many guns, they tell you to keep your hands behind your back, and stay calm when confronted by the police. In situations where there are many guns, you keep your hands visible, and stay calm. AOC did the wise thing, and got a $50 fine. The trump supporters broke into government buildings, and beat police officers with metal fire extinguishers... That is the wrong way to interact with police, and got them a few years in prison.
 
Hello Dutch,

Dutch Uncle said:
The Qless, be they elected or not, will not do well when this all comes down.

Anyone who supported the overthrow of the US government, either physically or materially, will be crushed and either sent to prison or the poor house.
Click to expand...

Either that or slip back into obscurity. Extremism belongs on the fringes, summarily ignored and left out of main stream America.
 
Hello Walt,

Walt said:
There are different pieces of advice, depending on how prevalent guns are. In situations where there are not many guns, they tell you to keep your hands behind your back, and stay calm when confronted by the police. In situations where there are many guns, you keep your hands visible, and stay calm. AOC did the wise thing, and got a $50 fine. The trump supporters broke into government buildings, and beat police officers with metal fire extinguishers... That is the wrong way to interact with police, and got them a few years in prison.
Click to expand...

It's a pretty twisted line of reasoning that leads extremists to believe attacking American law enforcement at the American Capitol was the best thing for America.

Placing people like that in prison sets the correct example of what America really stands for.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch,

Either that or slip back into obscurity. Extremism belongs on the fringes, summarily ignored and left out of main stream America.
Click to expand...

A lot of it depends upon the coming body count. If a lot of Americans end up murdered by Trumpers/WSEs, Americans will want justice by mounting a similar number of heads from the murderers on spikes for all to see.

I have no sympathy for these clowns:

6v9yah.jpg
 
Dutch Uncle said:
A lot of it depends upon the coming body count. If a lot of Americans end up murdered by Trumpers/WSEs, Americans will want justice by mounting a similar number of heads from the murderers on spikes for all to see.

I have no sympathy for these clowns:

6v9yah.jpg
Click to expand...

A little too graphic for me. I'll settle for the convicted doing time.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I give you links to the actual entities that do the reports and then you give links to investipedia? I'll stick with the Bureau of Labor and their description of how they calculate unemployment and where they state why no one should use their numbers they way you are. They aren't "census" questions since the Census Bureau has nothing to do with the monthly unemployment numbers. Most people in the know don't just look at the U3 numbers even though those are the number most reported by the media. Do you even know what that U6 unemployment is compared to the U3? By the way investopedia supports my claim about discouraged workers which is in direct contradiction of your claim, "I think you would be hard pressed to actually find people who "just stopped looking for work" as our MSM has periodically stated in the last few decades."

Everyone uses the numbers. Everyone with any sense knows that the numbers are different and can't be used interchangeably. An increase in unemployment claims doesn't mean that that unemployment rate is going up since unemployment doesn't count discouraged workers. Your previous statements show you don't know much about how anyone uses the unemployment numbers. I have been using them for over 20 years. I see you don't want to be educated because you are convinced you know more than anyone else. Good luck with that in life.
Click to expand...

the Investopedia site gave links within the article presented to actual DOL & BLS sites, so stop acting as if the article is all opinion and no fact. But it's interesting that you suddenly claim that the article supports your premise after you disparage it. You can't have it both ways.

When all is said and done, you just keep repeating your original assertion, maintaining that all information is so separate that what I put forth has no relevance regarding accuracy. The FACT remains that people who exhaust their benefits cannot be quantified as to whether they've been rehired somewhere when the "official" reports come out that unemployment is down. And AGAIN, one person holding 3 jobs does not mean 3 separate people are employed. Matters of fact & history that all your juggling and repetition cannot get past.

But lord knows you'll keep repeating yourself as if it will magically come true. Carry on.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
There you go again, trying to combine the different reports on employment to say that one is skewed BECAUSE of another one. No such thing can happen in the real world for people that actually understand what each report says. You keep claiming the numbers of employed as reported by businesses. There is no report by "BUSINESS" that says who is employed. You are making up a report that doesn't exist in the real world. ADP is not reporting on its employees. It is reporting on the payrolls of the business that use ADP. That is then used as a basis to estimate the rest of the business that don't use ADP. There is no report by businesses of the number of people they employ!!! That is your made up nonsense.

The IRS does NOT have the records of how many jobs one actually has. The IRS has the record of how many jobs are withholding taxes. That is not the same thing as the number of jobs one has. I could work 100 jobs for cash and the IRS would never know that I had those jobs.


https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm Are you willing to educate yourself on U5 and U6?
Click to expand...


FYI: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/hoursrecordkeeping

It's all part of the equation, Ricky. And they are NOT making the distinction of 1 person holding 3 separate jobs....the IRS does that, but strangely the IRS is NOT put in the equation when gauging the employment/unemployment situation.

You stupidly point out that paid in cash with no official records doesn't hit the IRS records. No kidding? Are you not pointing out a flaw in stats based on (GASP!) official records logged? Could that mean there are more people employed than the system leads to believe? Does that not throw things off? And if you accept this as fact, they WTF are you so damned desperate to deny the flaw in counting jobs filled when you have one person doing multiple jobs.?

And as to your last link: numbers determined by those who sign up and qualify for UI and when those benefits end. However, how do they determine "discouraged workers", as I never came across such a question from the person assigned to me. You don't present evidence that you are working, you don't get the insurance, but as YOU so readily pointed out, people can get paid "off the books" and be employed. They don't report that income to the IRS, they're not on UI. So the numbers are OFF. So we're dealing in guess work. And since this muddle presents these gray areas, my pointing out a 3 job person being counted by each separate business officially (1099 form, if I got the number write), but in reality 3 individual people are not working that job.

Keep it coming, Ricky. Your insipid stubbornness on this matter just keeps making my point.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
the Investopedia site gave links within the article presented to actual DOL & BLS sites, so stop acting as if the article is all opinion and no fact. But it's interesting that you suddenly claim that the article supports your premise after you disparage it. You can't have it both ways.

When all is said and done, you just keep repeating your original assertion, maintaining that all information is so separate that what I put forth has no relevance regarding accuracy. The FACT remains that people who exhaust their benefits cannot be quantified as to whether they've been rehired somewhere when the "official" reports come out that unemployment is down. And AGAIN, one person holding 3 jobs does not mean 3 separate people are employed. Matters of fact & history that all your juggling and repetition cannot get past.

But lord knows you'll keep repeating yourself as if it will magically come true. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Investopedia is a secondary source. Why use a secondary source when there is a primary source? My pointing out you are using a source that is not primary doesn't disparage the source, it questions your ability to do research.

None of the reports are about specific people since the data is anonymous. No one other than you has said that one person holding 3 jobs means that 3 people are employed in any data. The only one dropping all their balls is you. You don't know the first thing about how the reports are created or how they should be used together.
 
Taichiliberal said:
FYI: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/hoursrecordkeeping

It's all part of the equation, Ricky. And they are NOT making the distinction of 1 person holding 3 separate jobs....the IRS does that, but strangely the IRS is NOT put in the equation when gauging the employment/unemployment situation.

You stupidly point out that paid in cash with no official records doesn't hit the IRS records. No kidding? Are you not pointing out a flaw in stats based on (GASP!) official records logged? Could that mean there are more people employed than the system leads to believe? Does that not throw things off? And if you accept this as fact, they WTF are you so damned desperate to deny the flaw in counting jobs filled when you have one person doing multiple jobs.?

And as to your last link: numbers determined by those who sign up and qualify for UI and when those benefits end. However, how do they determine "discouraged workers", as I never came across such a question from the person assigned to me. You don't present evidence that you are working, you don't get the insurance, but as YOU so readily pointed out, people can get paid "off the books" and be employed. They don't report that income to the IRS, they're not on UI. So the numbers are OFF. So we're dealing in guess work. And since this muddle presents these gray areas, my pointing out a 3 job person being counted by each separate business officially (1099 form, if I got the number write), but in reality 3 individual people are not working that job.

Keep it coming, Ricky. Your insipid stubbornness on this matter just keeps making my point.
Click to expand...

OMFG. You are now being more of an idiot. Clearly you have never been an employer. An employer must keep records of their employees. But that is kept by the employer. It is only checked by the government if there is a dispute with an employee. The only thing the employer shares with the IRS is the employee's name, SS#, their w4 for withholdings and what the employee is paid. The data that the IRS gets is secret by law. They can't share it other than under very restricted circumstances.

I have never said that any of the counting methods is perfect. They are estimates bases on a statistical analysis except for new and continuing UI claims.

My link has absolutely nothing to do with the questions people are asked when they file for unemployment. Stop embarrassing liberals by being so stupid. Discouraged workers are part of the questions asked during the household survey. At this point, I guess I need to explain to you what the household survey is. It is what is used to give us the U3 number which is what is referred to as the unemployment rate. But because of the questions they ask they also calculate the U1-U6. U4 includes discouraged workers which if you read the notes will tell you what that people are. Then U5 adds in the discouraged workers and the marginally attached workers. Then U6 adds to that people that are working part time jobs but want full time work. (Read the notes on the link!!)

No, you didn't get the form correct. A 1099 is filed for work performed by someone that is not an employee. I have to file one for every self employed person that does work for me that earns more than $600.

I keep telling you this and you keep not understanding it. Business do NOT tell the government how many employees they have. They are not required to do so. They do under certain circumstances such as when the business is part of a government business survey but that is not for calculating employment. In most cases, the question is a range of the number of employees, less than 10, 10-50, etc. Stop making that mistake. I beg you. It makes you look stupid. And that makes the rest of us liberals look stupid by association.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top