What Does AOC Have That Boebert Does Not?

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
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.

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.

Rick, spare us all your BS dodges and repetitions. YOU keep trying to redefine everything to suit your narrative while trying to dodge the simple truths that I laid out. Clearly, your insipid stubbornness is tied up with either some ego thing or your need to stretch this out so the advertisers on this site will see it has an audience. In any event, we've done this dance. No sense is repeating it. You may have the last predictable word.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
FYI: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wo...srecordkeeping

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.

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.

Spare us all the regurgitation of your previous posts, rick. You keep trying to talk past the FACTS of the linked information I put forth WHICH ARE INTER TWINED. You blather on hoping your myopia will disprove my point. That I provided a link that clearly disproved your red embolden declaration displays your insipid stubbornness. The objective, rational reader sees your folly in the chronology of the posts. That you're having a meltdown and resorting to name calling with your repetition and attempted embellishments through association just demonstrates your inability to disprove my initial point. Time and again you display the "estimates" and lack of information in your examples, then turn-around and state how "accurate" the conclusions are.....but that my observation can't possibly exist.

Like I said before, you can't have it both ways.

GMAFB, Rick. Unless the official folk tell it to you in block letters, your brain just goes on auto drive. We've done this dance, and your stumbling on your own feet. You may have the last predictable word.

P.S. Sorry about the 1099 thing....just finished a tussle with the IRS over old records...THEY OWE ME MONEY! Woo-Hoo!