Real unemployment numbers

Fun with supply and demand.
rickoshay85
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:19 pm

Real unemployment numbers

Post by rickoshay85 » Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:49 pm

According to the official US Debt Clock.org...

In 2008 Republican unemployment was 10.696 million (and moving)

In 2011 Democrat unemployment is 13.896 million (and moving)

The difference is only 3.2 million, not nearly as bad as we have been led to believe.

The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth. W. Somerset Maugham
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Real unemployment numbers

Post by Austin Harper » Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:52 pm

Is it a common misconception that there are more unemployed Democrats than Republicans? That's a new one to me.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

rickoshay85
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Real unemployment numbers

Post by rickoshay85 » Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:06 pm

Austin Harper wrote:Is it a common misconception that there are more unemployed Democrats than Republicans? That's a new one to me.


Yeah, I see what you mean. I should have said... Bush and Obama administrations
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Real unemployment numbers

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:01 pm

rickoshay85 wrote:According to the official US Debt Clock.org...

In 2008 Republican [administration] unemployment was 10.696 million (and moving)

In 2011 Democrat [administration] unemployment is 13.896 million (and moving)

The difference is only 3.2 million, not nearly as bad as we have been led to believe.

Why do you keep posting this same faulty assertion?

21 July 2011: viewtopic.php?f=51&t=16362
28 July 2011: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=16425
16 Aug 2011: viewtopic.php?f=51&t=16547
20 Aug 2011: viewtopic.php?f=51&t=16569

What part of the explanations do you not understand?

Bunyip
Regular Poster
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:56 pm
Location: Adelaide South Australia

Re: Real unemployment numbers

Post by Bunyip » Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:22 pm

I guess they do things differently in the US.


During a 30 odd year career in the Australian federal civil service,I was long aware that official unemployment figures are ALWAYS understated by 1-- 3%..

The incumbent shower made no difference. This is not necessarily deliberate; the method of data collection is flawed.
Man is not so much a rational animal as a rationalising one.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11783
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Real unemployment numbers

Post by OlegTheBatty » Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:29 am

Statistics Canada's error rates are available if you know how to get them. Unemployment error rates vary by region. The only one I recall specifically is my own, 3% - that is, if the published figure is 6%, you can be 95% certain that it is between 3% and 9%.

We're at the bottom end of the accuracy. Large cities had somewhere around 1% uncertainty, I don't recall exactly.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

rickoshay85
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Real unemployment numbers

Post by rickoshay85 » Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:18 pm

xouper wrote:
rickoshay85 wrote:According to the official US Debt Clock.org...

In 2008 Republican [administration] unemployment was 10.696 million (and moving)

In 2011 Democrat [administration] unemployment is 13.896 million (and moving)

The difference is only 3.2 million, not nearly as bad as we have been led to believe.

Why do you keep posting this same faulty assertion?

21 July 2011: viewtopic.php?f=51&t=16362
28 July 2011: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=16425
16 Aug 2011: viewtopic.php?f=51&t=16547
20 Aug 2011: viewtopic.php?f=51&t=16569

What part of the explanations do you not understand?


All of that could be exaggerated or doctored, but not the the actual unemployment numbers from todays national debt clock, 2008 and 2011.. Don't believe me, check it for yourself.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Real unemployment numbers

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:27 pm

rickoshay85 wrote:All of that could be exaggerated or doctored, but not the the actual unemployment numbers from todays national debt clock, 2008 and 2011.. Don't believe me, check it for yourself.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I don't dispute the unemployment numbers you posted for 2008 and 2011. The problem is your assertion, "not nearly as bad as we have been led to believe". What do you mean "we"?? What have you been led to believe? Who has led you to believe the difference is more than 3.2 million?

User avatar
fromthehills
True Skeptic
Posts: 10875
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Real unemployment numbers

Post by fromthehills » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:24 am

De ja vu all over again.

rickoshay85
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Real unemployment numbers

Post by rickoshay85 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:36 pm

xouper wrote:
rickoshay85 wrote:All of that could be exaggerated or doctored, but not the the actual unemployment numbers from todays national debt clock, 2008 and 2011.. Don't believe me, check it for yourself.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I don't dispute the unemployment numbers you posted for 2008 and 2011. The problem is your assertion, "not nearly as bad as we have been led to believe". What do you mean "we"?? What have you been led to believe? Who has led you to believe the difference is more than 3.2 million?


You can use waterboarding or any other kind of torture, but you won't get one word out of me, only name, rank, and serial number.
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Real unemployment numbers

Post by xouper » Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:54 am

rickoshay85 wrote:
xouper wrote:
rickoshay85 wrote:All of that could be exaggerated or doctored, but not the the actual unemployment numbers from todays national debt clock, 2008 and 2011.. Don't believe me, check it for yourself.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I don't dispute the unemployment numbers you posted for 2008 and 2011. The problem is your assertion, "not nearly as bad as we have been led to believe". What do you mean "we"?? What have you been led to believe? Who has led you to believe the difference is more than 3.2 million?

You can use waterboarding or any other kind of torture, but you won't get one word out of me, only name, rank, and serial number.

Let the record show that when asked to explain what his claim is, rickoshay85 refused.

This is the fifth thread rickoshay85 has started to make the same faulty argument in the opening post. Can anyone say "spam"?

User avatar
fromthehills
True Skeptic
Posts: 10875
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Real unemployment numbers

Post by fromthehills » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:04 am

xouper wrote:
rickoshay85 wrote:
xouper wrote:
rickoshay85 wrote:All of that could be exaggerated or doctored, but not the the actual unemployment numbers from todays national debt clock, 2008 and 2011.. Don't believe me, check it for yourself.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I don't dispute the unemployment numbers you posted for 2008 and 2011. The problem is your assertion, "not nearly as bad as we have been led to believe". What do you mean "we"?? What have you been led to believe? Who has led you to believe the difference is more than 3.2 million?

You can use waterboarding or any other kind of torture, but you won't get one word out of me, only name, rank, and serial number.

Let the record show that when asked to explain what his claim is, rickoshay85 refused.

This is the fifth thread rickoshay85 has started to make the same faulty argument in the opening post. Can anyone say "spam"?


Logged and noted.