Unemployment Rate Facts by JEWELSTAITEFAN

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Unemployment Rate Facts

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Friday, April 5, 2024 14:32
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 27706
PAGE 2 of 16

Monday, April 9, 2018 7:53 AM

I don't know who you're talking to, son, but I can math far better than you.

You don't seem to do English to gud though. If you're going to ask somebody questions, make sure the questions you're asking make sense.

Don't downplay the Nasdaq. 78% is a huge loss, and since we're talking a crash in tech that's where the biggest numbers in the drop would have occured. The dotcom crash was a thing. You will find 100% bipartisan agreement about it being a thing. It was a very big thing, and although it was not GWB's fault it did start off his presidency poorly. It also coincided with the first time we saw $2 per gallon of gasoline. A ton of jobs were lost, and mine was one of them at the time.

Consider yourself lucky that you managed to dodge two bullets if you've remained employed this entire time.

Now that you've gone back and re-articulated yourself, I'll eventually get to answering your questions when I have some time.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2018 8:41 AM

Oh.... and BTW....

The DOW was at 17,004 in December of 1999.

By September of 2002, it had dropped from 17,004 to 10,446. This was a drop of 39% in the same time frame that the NASDAQ dropped by 78%.

The DOW would not see 17,000 again for 14 years until November of 2013.

The only way that you could deny that this was a market crash is if you're suffering form Conservitard delusions of your own.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart

More later...

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2018 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Oh.... and BTW....

The DOW was at 17,004 in December of 1999.

no.
Quote:
By September of 2002, it had dropped from 17,004 to 10,446.
no.
Quote:
This was a drop of 39% in the same time frame that the NASDAQ dropped by 78%.

The DOW would not see 17,000 again for 14 years until November of 2013.
14 years? No.

Quote:

The only way that you could deny that this was a market crash is if you're suffering form Conservitard delusions of your own.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart

More later...

Do Right, Be Right. :)

GWB was not President in 2000, let alone March.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2018 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
no.

Quote:
no.

Quote:
No.

Upon further investigation, I couldn't get the same numbers anywhere. I was about to email the site that I linked and call them lying bastards, until I realized that they have a checkbox for "adjust for inflation" automatically checked.

WTF? Why would they do that? Who talks about the DOW with inflation?

Quote:
GWB was not President in 2000, let alone March.

Correct. My mistake.

Using the same website, without the gorram box for inflation checked, the DOW was at 11,497 in December of 1999. By October of 2002, it had bottomed out at 7,591.

That is still a loss of 34% of the value of the entire DJIA during the same time frame that the NASDAQ took a loss of 78%.

Still a Market crash, no matter which way you look at it.

The DJIA did not see those numbers again for nearly 7 years in September of 2006 when it reached 11,679. And the further gains and good times only lasted about a year and a half, when in May of 2008 it started free falling again until finally landing even lower to 7,062 in February of 2009 in the aftermath of the housing bubble bursting.

So. Question 1 answered. Are you still denying there was a market crash that began in 2000?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2018 11:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
no.

Quote:
no.

Quote:
No.

Upon further investigation, I couldn't get the same numbers anywhere. I was about to email the site that I linked and call them lying bastards, until I realized that they have a checkbox for "adjust for inflation" automatically checked.

WTF? Why would they do that? Who talks about the DOW with inflation?
Quote:
GWB was not President in 2000, let alone March.

Correct. My mistake.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

One reason they want to use "adjusted" figures is so they can float different numbers every day, based upon backwards adjustment of each different day you try to obtain the numbers. This makes it impossible to nail down their lies, because the "historical" numbers change every day.
The same applies to "adjusting" the figures like BLS does. They work tirelessly to gloss over the actual figures in order to obfuscate how bad Obamanomics was. Did you read this month's summary? A although the real numbers are the best we've had in decades, they are proclaiming No Change, No Difference, Little Change, No Significant Difference, move along now, ignore these numbers, these are not the figures you are looking for.

Another observation: this month shows that the Want A Job category plus the Involuntary Part-Time category totals less than 10 million, for the first and only time on my table. I could not find accurate data from before January 2008.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2018 11:25 AM

Reposting for top of the page reference:

Updated with today's report:

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
BLS currently defines the Want A Job category as not being part of the Labor Force.

So I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow. The documented shenanigans of Obamabots deliberately refusing to Report jobless data in the months before the 2012 Election are a different matter, I will just use the Fake Data they produced and pretend it was real.

I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.

Mo/Yr Unemp Pcnt WAJb Pcnt SubTtl Prcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc% U-6%
Jan08 08221 05.4% 4977 3.2% 13198 08.6% 5235 3.5% 18433 12.1% 232616 152828 65.7 09.9
Jan09 13009 08.5% 5866 3.8% 18875 12.3% 8675 5.7% 27550 18.0% 234739 153445 65.4 15.4
Jan10 16147 10.6% 6108 4.0% 22255 14.6% 9161 5.9% 31416 20.5% 236832 152957 64.6 18.0
Jan11 14937 09.8% 6643 4.3% 21580 14.1% 9027 6.0% 30607 20.1% 238704 152536 63.9 17.3
Jan12 13541 08.8% 6495 4.3% 20036 13.1% 8747 5.7% 28783 18.8% 242269 153485 63.4 16.2
Jan13 13181 08.5% 6781 4.4% 19962 12.9% 8506 5.5% 28468 18.4% 244663 154794 63.3 15.4
Jan14 10855 07.0% 6508 4.2% 17363 11.2% 7617 5.0% 24980 16.2% 246915 154381 62.5 13.5
Jan15 09498 06.1% 6467 4.1% 15965 10.2% 7125 4.6% 23090 14.8% 249723 156050 62.5 12.0
Jan16 08309 05.3% 6166 3.9% 14475 09.2% 6234 4.0% 20709 13.2% 252397 157347 62.3 10.5
Jan17 08149 05.1% 5934 3.8% 14083 08.9% 6127 3.8% 20210 12.7% 254082 158676 62.5 10.1
Jan18 07189 04.5% 5364 3.3% 12553 07.8% 5380 3.4% 17933 11.2% 256780 160037 62.3 08.9

Feb18 07091 04.4% 5152 3.2% 12243 07.6% 5241 3.2% 17484 10.8% 256934 161494 62.9 08.6
Mar18 06671 04.1% 4793 3.0% 11464 07.1% 4975 3.1% 16439 10.2% 257097 161548 62.8 08.1

Jul 12 13400 08.6% 6837 4.3% 20237 12.9% 8218 5.3% 28455 18.2% 243354 156526 64.3 15.2
Aug12 12696 08.2% 7631 4.9% 20327 13.1% 7723 5.0% 28050 18.1% 243566 155255 63.7 14.6
Sep12 11742 07.6% 6427 4.1% 18169 11.7% 8003 5.2% 26172 16.9% 243772 155075 63.6 14.2
Oct12 11741 07.5% 6142 4.0% 17883 11.5% 7768 5.0% 25651 16.5% 243983 155779 63.8 13.9
Nov12 11404 07.4% 6495 4.2% 17899 11.6% 7898 5.0% 25797 16.6% 244174 154953 63.5 13.9

Quote:

The Civilian Adult Population steadily Increases, suggesting that figure is not manipulated.
The Unemployment Rate after 2008 was able to be artificially less by shifting more unemployed into the Want A Job category, which Obamanomics managed to increase to over 7 Million for the only time in the BLS tables. This Jan figure (Want A Job) didn't return to within 0.1% of 2008 level until 2018, after Trump's first year.
The figure of Unemployed plus Want A Job is indisputably the real Unfake Unemployment figure.

The Labor Force Participation Rate steadily dropped each year until finally reversing in 2017, Trump's first year.

The Want A Job count maxxed out in Aug 2012, just as Obama was proclaiming that Unemployment Rates had dropped, which he needed to get below 8.0% by October, in order to win re-election.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2018 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
One reason they want to use "adjusted" figures is so they can float different numbers every day, based upon backwards adjustment of each different day you try to obtain the numbers. This makes it impossible to nail down their lies, because the "historical" numbers change every day.

I don't doubt this at all. It's unfortunate that they do this though since the interactive graph on that site is better than any that I've found anywhere else in terms of the ease of use and how the information is presented.

It's a good thing I noticed that you can uncheck the "Lie To Me" option they set to default. Thanks for making me check my facts.

Quote:
The same applies to "adjusting" the figures like BLS does. They work tirelessly to gloss over the actual figures in order to obfuscate how bad Obamanomics was. Did you read this month's summary? A although the real numbers are the best we've had in decades, they are proclaiming No Change, No Difference, Little Change, No Significant Difference, move along now, ignore these numbers, these are not the figures you are looking for.

There's no doubt the DOW is doing better than it ever has, or pretty close to the high today at least. I still don't think that translates at all to helping the average working class family in the least bit though.

In case you didn't notice it, I re-stated the case after unchecking the websites "Lie To Me" option. The DOW still lost 34% from December of 1999 to October of 2002. The same time frame that the NASDAQ lost 78% of its value.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2018 11:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
no.
Quote:
no.

Quote:
No.
Upon further investigation, I couldn't get the same numbers anywhere. I was about to email the site that I linked and call them lying bastards, until I realized that they have a checkbox for "adjust for inflation" automatically checked.

WTF? Why would they do that? Who talks about the DOW with inflation?
Quote:
GWB was not President in 2000, let alone March.
Correct. My mistake.

Using the same website, without the gorram box for inflation checked, the DOW was at 11,497 in December of 1999. By October of 2002, it had bottomed out at 7,591.

That is still a loss of 34% of the value of the entire DJIA during the same time frame that the NASDAQ took a loss of 78%.

Still a Market crash, no matter which way you look at it.

The DJIA did not see those numbers again for nearly 7 years in September of 2006 when it reached 11,679. And the further gains and good times only lasted about a year and a half, when in May of 2008 it started free falling again until finally landing even lower to 7,062 in February of 2009 in the aftermath of the housing bubble bursting.

So. Question 1 answered. Are you still denying there was a market crash that began in 2000?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Here is your newly altered post.

From Dec 1999 until May 2001 the DOW dropped 100 points, right? And you are claiming that this drop of less than 1% over the span of 18 months is a crash, or part of your crash, right?
Yes, I most certainly dispute that a change of 1% in the DOW is a crash, of any sort, using any reasonable definition.
If you correct your claim to state that a crash of 34% started in May 2001, then people could see that you have swerved into reality.
Instead of Feb 2009, you might check 9 March 2009.

Using your flimsy definition of "crash" the crash that ended in early 2009 started in July 1997 - it doesn't matter how high the DOW got in between those dates according to your definition.

Sector crashes happen all the time. Currently the FANG sector is in what some call a crash.

The broader Market indices of DJIA and S&P 500 did not have a crash starting in 2000, so it is no problem for me or anybody to deny what did not happen. Both of these did start a crash in 2001.

Crashes of Russell 2000, IEFE, NASDAQ, Wilshire 5000, or any other subsector indices do not define a Stock Market Crash. Many times these falter while the Bull Market roars onward and upward.
When the Market Crashed in 2001, few if any sectors withstood the environment without dropping also, so it is no surprise that a sector did not gain during an actual Market Crash.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2018 12:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

From Dec 1999 until May 2001 the DOW dropped 100 points, right?

No. It lost over 550 points in between those dates.

Quote:
And you are claiming that this drop of less than 1% over the span of 18 months is a crash, or part of your crash, right?

Part of the original website's crash, which was referencing the steep decline of the NASDAQ that early as a precursor to what would happen to the DOW.

Quote:
Yes, I most certainly dispute that a change of 1% in the DOW is a crash, of any sort, using any reasonable definition.

Okay. Then look between May of 2001 (10,911) to September of 2002 (7,591) instead. That's still a loss of 31% of the DOW in even less time. It also puts it completely under GWB's watch.

During that time, the NASDAQ went from 2,956 (May 2001) to 1,612 (Sept 2002). That's a drop of 45%.

Not the 78% drop that was figured in the original link using the original dates that primarily effected the NASDAQ, but these numbers of 31% and 45% are a lot closer. (And they don't include the original 33% drop in the NASDAQ before we begin counting with our new date of May of 2001).

If anything, this is evidence that the earlier beginnings of the total 78% crash of the NASDAQ brought about the 31% crash of the DOW a year later.

Not really anything we didn't already know. The dotcom bubble bursting was terrible for the economy, and it was followed by the beginning of the never-ending wars we still find ourselves mired in today.

Just curious, now that this is all cleared up. Are you denying that a 31% loss in a year is a crash?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2018 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
From Dec 1999 until May 2001 the DOW dropped 100 points, right?
No. It lost over 550 points in between those dates.

You Stated Dow was at 11,497 in Dec 1999. Dow was at about 11,400 in May 2001. For most people, simple subtraction reveals the difference of about 100.
Get back to us when you've corrected your Maths.
Quote:
Quote:
And you are claiming that this drop of less than 1% over the span of 18 months is a crash, or part of your crash, right?
Part of the original website's crash, which was referencing the steep decline of the NASDAQ that early as a precursor to what would happen to the DOW.
Quote:
Yes, I most certainly dispute that a change of 1% in the DOW is a crash, of any sort, using any reasonable definition.
Okay. Then look between May of 2001 (10,911) to September of 2002 (7,591) instead. That's still a loss of 31% of the DOW in even less time.
Welcome to reality. Nice of you to visit.
Quote:

During that time, the NASDAQ went from 2,956 (May 2001) to 1,612 (Sept 2002). That's a drop of 45%.
Again, welcome to reality.

Quote:
Not the 78% drop that was figured in the original link using the original dates that primarily effected the NASDAQ, but these numbers of 31% and 45% are a lot closer. (And they don't include the original 33% drop in the NASDAQ before we begin counting with our new date of May of 2001).

If anything, this is evidence that the earlier beginnings of the total 78% crash of the NASDAQ brought about the 31% crash of the DOW a year later.

Not really anything we didn't already know. The dotcom bubble bursting was terrible for the economy, and it was followed by the beginning of the never-ending wars we still find ourselves mired in today.

Just curious, now that this is all cleared up. Are you denying that a 31% loss in a year is a crash?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

All of the Real World understood that a Market Crash started in 2001.
You were arguing that a drop of 1% from early 2000 to mid 2001 was a crash, which few would really believe.

Everybody knows a crash started in 2001.
Claiming that a Stock Market Crash occurred in March 2000 is pure hocum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2018 2:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You Stated Dow was at 11,497 in Dec 1999. Dow was at about 11,400 in May 2001. For most people, simple subtraction reveals the difference of about 100.

Dow was 10,991 in May of 2001. 500+ point difference.

I'm sure it bounced around from day to day, but I'm getting all of these figures from this particular graph.

Quote:
Get back to us when you've corrected your Maths.

My maths be fine.

Quote:
All of the Real World understood that a Market Crash started in 2001.
You were arguing that a drop of 1% from early 2000 to mid 2001 was a crash, which few would really believe.

Everybody knows a crash started in 2001.
Claiming that a Stock Market Crash occurred in March 2000 is pure hocum.

No it's not. The NASDAQ did take a huge dive when the article said it did. The tech bubble bursting is what started the market crash. Just because it didn't show in the DOW until later didn't mean that it didn't begin earlier during the first year when the NASDAQ initially plummeted over 30% before it started effecting the DOW overall, and finally bottomed out after losing 78% when both indexes hit their lows for the time.

I don't even understand why you're being so obtuse about the issue.

All you've done here is moved the timeline forward so that it all happened while GWB was in office, rather than it's true beginnings at the end of the Clinton Administration.

Aren't you arguing against your Conserveitard principals here?

I'm trying to help you out here, buddy.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2018 3:41 PM

If your source isn't giving you adequate information, then it is crap.
Try looking up "historical DJIA prices"

Looks like Dow may have been around 10,991 on 1 May 2001, or 30 May. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 May 2001 was 11,400.
An almost 4% change in a couple weeks is not often ignored by serious investors, and you shouldn't either.

A 1% drop is not a crash, whether in a day or in 18 months, like you are claiming.

Making up stories, lying, rewriting history doesn't serve anybody except liars.
Denying history is the domain of Libtards.
First clearly identify history, then analyze why. Don't lie about history just to support your bias.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2018 11:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
If your source isn't giving you adequate information, then it is crap.
Try looking up "historical DJIA prices"

I'm fine with the numbers. I gave you the source that we're getting them from. Oddly, you're fine with the first one, but take issue with the second one.

Quote:
Looks like Dow may have been around 10,991 on 1 May 2001, or 30 May. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 May 2001 was 11,400.

So. Then we're agreed that at some date in May of 2001 it was 10,991. Who cares what date it was? I'm assuming that every number on any graph is from a certain date.

I'd love to see a graph that showed the average for the month, for every month, going back at least as far as the 90's. I haven't found one. If you do, let me know.

Quote:
An almost 4% change in a couple weeks is not often ignored by serious investors, and you shouldn't either.

Maybe not, but you're ignoring it right now. Because it suits you, you're going with data that gives a 1% drop from a different website or graph that you haven't linked. I'm going with whatever number they put for the month on this graph. I seriously doubt that the creators of this graph put it together with numbers that would make your argument look bad on this particular forum. Geez.

Quote:
A 1% drop is not a crash, whether in a day or in 18 months, like you are claiming.

I'm not claiming it is.

Quote:
Making up stories, lying, rewriting history doesn't serve anybody except liars.
Denying history is the domain of Libtards.
First clearly identify history, then analyze why. Don't lie about history just to support your bias.

I've given a link with numbers. You've given nothing.

Your'e the one that's lying right now. And I have no idea why. The difference between 1% and 4% is moot.

What is important is while the DOW lost 1% to 4%, the NASDAQ lost over 30%, then the DOW lost well over 30% as the NASDAQ lost another 40+%.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Don't lie about history just to support your bias.

I thought about this more, and frankly I want to know what you think my bias is here.

You're hung up on this little detail that has gone so far off the original topic that I just don't get it.

Honestly, I'll say that I don't even know why I'm arguing you at this point other than the fact that you're being insulting every time you post.

We seem to have wandered pretty far off the map.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 10, 2018 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Don't lie about history just to support your bias.
I thought about this more, and frankly I want to know what you think my bias is here.

You're hung up on this little detail that has gone so far off the original topic that I just don't get it.

Honestly, I'll say that I don't even know why I'm arguing you at this point other than the fact that you're being insulting every time you post.

We seem to have wandered pretty far off the map.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

This was meant in generic terms, a general rule of thumb.

Whatever your bias, or anybody's bias, rewriting history to backstop a delusion, or fabricating evidence to support a spin, does not serve the logical argument.
Look at the evidence first, then draw conclusions. Do not create conclusions first and then search for errant wisps of evidence to support them.

I had already moved on, you weren't getting anywhere. I only replied to this due to your direct question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 10, 2018 6:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
This was meant in generic terms, a general rule of thumb.

Whatever your bias, or anybody's bias, rewriting history to backstop a delusion, or fabricating evidence to support a spin, does not serve the logical argument.
Look at the evidence first, then draw conclusions. Do not create conclusions first and then search for errant wisps of evidence to support them.

I had already moved on, you weren't getting anywhere. I only replied to this due to your direct question.

Bullshit. You didn't move anywhere. You're hung up on a single line of a table that doesn't do anything to bolster either of our arguments either way.

The only thing that line decides is the beginning of the market crash and what somebody would perceive as it's beginning.

I happen to agree 100% with the source that the NASDAQ falling over 30% signaled the beginning of the crash, since the crash was tech based. You don't agree with that.

Big fucking deal.

There's no "bias".

I've already asked you what you think my bias is here, and you won't answer that question. Why is that?

The link that you're so hung up over that single line in the table doesn't go out of its way to make the Right look bad, as far as I can tell. It seems to be fair and actually put the worst of times during Democratic Administrations. So what gives?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 12, 2018 8:40 PM

And splitting the table into 2 smaller versions:

I will refer to this set of data as Table JSF-URF-1AB

Updated with today's report:

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
BLS currently defines the Want A Job category as not being part of the Labor Force.

So I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow. The documented shenanigans of Obamabots deliberately refusing to Report jobless data in the months before the 2012 Election are a different matter, I will just use the Fake Data they produced and pretend it was real.

I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.

Mo/Yr Unemp Pcnt WAJb Pcnt SubTtl Prcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Percnt
Jan08 08221 05.4% 4977 3.2% 13198 08.6% 5235 3.5% 18433 12.1%
Jan09 13009 08.5% 5866 3.8% 18875 12.3% 8675 5.7% 27550 18.0%
Jan10 16147 10.6% 6108 4.0% 22255 14.6% 9161 5.9% 31416 20.5%
Jan11 14937 09.8% 6643 4.3% 21580 14.1% 9027 6.0% 30607 20.1%
Jan12 13541 08.8% 6495 4.3% 20036 13.1% 8747 5.7% 28783 18.8%
Jan13 13181 08.5% 6781 4.4% 19962 12.9% 8506 5.5% 28468 18.4%
Jan14 10855 07.0% 6508 4.2% 17363 11.2% 7617 5.0% 24980 16.2%
Jan15 09498 06.1% 6467 4.1% 15965 10.2% 7125 4.6% 23090 14.8%
Jan16 08309 05.3% 6166 3.9% 14475 09.2% 6234 4.0% 20709 13.2%
Jan17 08149 05.1% 5934 3.8% 14083 08.9% 6127 3.8% 20210 12.7%
Jan18 07189 04.5% 5364 3.3% 12553 07.8% 5380 3.4% 17933 11.2%

Feb18 07091 04.4% 5152 3.2% 12243 07.6% 5241 3.2% 17484 10.8%
Mar18 06671 04.1% 4793 3.0% 11464 07.1% 4975 3.1% 16439 10.2%

Jul 12 13400 08.6% 6837 4.3% 20237 12.9% 8218 5.3% 28455 18.2%
Aug12 12696 08.2% 7631 4.9% 20327 13.1% 7723 5.0% 28050 18.1%
Sep12 11742 07.6% 6427 4.1% 18169 11.7% 8003 5.2% 26172 16.9%
Oct12 11741 07.5% 6142 4.0% 17883 11.5% 7768 5.0% 25651 16.5%
Nov12 11404 07.4% 6495 4.2% 17899 11.6% 7898 5.0% 25797 16.6%

Mo/Yr Unemp Pcnt WAJb Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc% U-6%
Jan08 08221 05.4% 4977 3.2% 18433 12.1% 232616 152828 65.7 09.9
Jan09 13009 08.5% 5866 3.8% 27550 18.0% 234739 153445 65.4 15.4
Jan10 16147 10.6% 6108 4.0% 31416 20.5% 236832 152957 64.6 18.0
Jan11 14937 09.8% 6643 4.3% 30607 20.1% 238704 152536 63.9 17.3
Jan12 13541 08.8% 6495 4.3% 28783 18.8% 242269 153485 63.4 16.2
Jan13 13181 08.5% 6781 4.4% 28468 18.4% 244663 154794 63.3 15.4
Jan14 10855 07.0% 6508 4.2% 24980 16.2% 246915 154381 62.5 13.5
Jan15 09498 06.1% 6467 4.1% 23090 14.8% 249723 156050 62.5 12.0
Jan16 08309 05.3% 6166 3.9% 20709 13.2% 252397 157347 62.3 10.5
Jan17 08149 05.1% 5934 3.8% 20210 12.7% 254082 158676 62.5 10.1
Jan18 07189 04.5% 5364 3.3% 17933 11.2% 256780 160037 62.3 08.9

Feb18 07091 04.4% 5152 3.2% 17484 10.8% 256934 161494 62.9 08.6
Mar18 06671 04.1% 4793 3.0% 16439 10.2% 257097 161548 62.8 08.1

Jul 12 13400 08.6% 6837 4.3% 28455 18.2% 243354 156526 64.3 15.2
Aug12 12696 08.2% 7631 4.9% 28050 18.1% 243566 155255 63.7 14.6
Sep12 11742 07.6% 6427 4.1% 26172 16.9% 243772 155075 63.6 14.2
Oct12 11741 07.5% 6142 4.0% 25651 16.5% 243983 155779 63.8 13.9
Nov12 11404 07.4% 6495 4.2% 25797 16.6% 244174 154953 63.5 13.9

Quote:
The Civilian Adult Population steadily Increases, suggesting that figure is not manipulated.
The Unemployment Rate after 2008 was able to be artificially less by shifting more unemployed into the Want A Job category, which Obamanomics managed to increase to over 7 Million for the only time in the BLS tables. This Jan figure (Want A Job) didn't return to within 0.1% of 2008 level until 2018, after Trump's first year.
The figure of Unemployed plus Want A Job is indisputably the real Unfake Unemployment figure.

The Labor Force Participation Rate steadily dropped each year until finally reversing in 2017, Trump's first year.

The Want A Job count maxxed out in Aug 2012, just as Obama was proclaiming that Unemployment Rates had dropped, which he needed to get below 8.0% by October, in order to win re-election.

Well, gee whiz. The default font must still be different from one computer to another, with one having column headers align, and another they don't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 12, 2018 8:46 PM

It's not readable here. You should probably link the source table, or create a google spreadsheet with the data.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 12, 2018 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It's not readable here. You should probably link the source table, or create a google spreadsheet with the data.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Sure.
You find a source with all the relevent data, or create your spreadsheet, and then post it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 13, 2018 2:24 AM

I will refer to this set of data as Table JSF-URF-1

Found some data prior to 10 years ago:
Jan 2002 is listed twice. First with original report data from February 2002. Second with revised data from new Census data, published in February 2003.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
BLS currently defines the Want A Job category as not being part of the Labor Force.

So I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow. The documented shenanigans of Obamabots deliberately refusing to Report jobless data in the months before the 2012 Election are a different matter, I will just use the Fake Data they produced and pretend it was real.

I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.

Mo/Yr Unemp Pcnt WAJb Pcnt SubTtl Prcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc% U-6%
Jan98 07069 05.2% 5026 3.7% 12095 08.9% 4090 3.0% 16185 11.9% 204238 135951 66.6 09.3
Jan99 06604 04.8% 4800 3.5% 11404 08.3% 3645 2.6% 15049 10.9% 206719 137943 66.7 08.5
Jan00 06316 04.5% 4354 3.1% 10670 07.6% 3355 2.4% 14025 10.0% 208782 139621 66.9 07.8
Jan01 06647 04.7% 4474 3.2% 11121 07.9% 3559 2.5% 14680 10.4% 210889 141049 66.9 08.1
Jan02 08935 06.3% 4872 3.5% 13807 09.8% 4249 3.0% 18056 12.8% 213089 141074 66.2 10.5

Jan02 09051 06.3% 4938 3.4% 13989 09.8% 4453 3.1% 18442 12.9% 216506 143228 66.2 10.5
Jan03 09395 06.5% 4779 3.3% 14174 09.8% 5003 3.4% 19177 13.2% 219897 145301 66.1 11.0
Jan04 09144 06.3% 4913 3.4% 14057 09.6% 5152 3.5% 19209 13.2% 222161 146068 65.7 10.9
Jan05 08444 05.7% 5136 3.5% 13580 09.2% 4793 3.3% 18373 12.5% 224837 147125 65.4 10.2
Jan06 07608 05.1% 5095 3.4% 12703 08.5% 4513 3.0% 17216 11.5% 227553 149090 65.5 09.2
Jan07 07649 05.0% 4633 3.0% 12282 08.1% 4620 3.0% 16902 11.1% 230650 151924 65.9 09.1
Jan08 08221 05.4% 4977 3.2% 13198 08.6% 5235 3.5% 18433 12.1% 232616 152828 65.7 09.9
Jan09 13009 08.5% 5866 3.8% 18875 12.3% 8675 5.7% 27550 18.0% 234739 153445 65.4 15.4
Jan10 16147 10.6% 6108 4.0% 22255 14.6% 9161 5.9% 31416 20.5% 236832 152957 64.6 18.0
Jan11 14937 09.8% 6643 4.3% 21580 14.1% 9027 6.0% 30607 20.1% 238704 152536 63.9 17.3
Jan12 13541 08.8% 6495 4.3% 20036 13.1% 8747 5.7% 28783 18.8% 242269 153485 63.4 16.2
Jan13 13181 08.5% 6781 4.4% 19962 12.9% 8506 5.5% 28468 18.4% 244663 154794 63.3 15.4
Jan14 10855 07.0% 6508 4.2% 17363 11.2% 7617 5.0% 24980 16.2% 246915 154381 62.5 13.5
Jan15 09498 06.1% 6467 4.1% 15965 10.2% 7125 4.6% 23090 14.8% 249723 156050 62.5 12.0
Jan16 08309 05.3% 6166 3.9% 14475 09.2% 6234 4.0% 20709 13.2% 252397 157347 62.3 10.5
Jan17 08149 05.1% 5934 3.8% 14083 08.9% 6127 3.8% 20210 12.7% 254082 158676 62.5 10.1
Jan18 07189 04.5% 5364 3.3% 12553 07.8% 5380 3.4% 17933 11.2% 256780 160037 62.3 08.9

Feb18 07091 04.4% 5152 3.2% 12243 07.6% 5241 3.2% 17484 10.8% 256934 161494 62.9 08.6
Mar18 06671 04.1% 4793 3.0% 11464 07.1% 4975 3.1% 16439 10.2% 257097 161548 62.8 08.1

Jul 12 13400 08.6% 6837 4.3% 20237 12.9% 8218 5.3% 28455 18.2% 243354 156526 64.3 15.2
Aug12 12696 08.2% 7631 4.9% 20327 13.1% 7723 5.0% 28050 18.1% 243566 155255 63.7 14.6
Sep12 11742 07.6% 6427 4.1% 18169 11.7% 8003 5.2% 26172 16.9% 243772 155075 63.6 14.2
Oct12 11741 07.5% 6142 4.0% 17883 11.5% 7768 5.0% 25651 16.5% 243983 155779 63.8 13.9
Nov12 11404 07.4% 6495 4.2% 17899 11.6% 7898 5.0% 25797 16.6% 244174 154953 63.5 13.9

Quote:
The Civilian Adult Population steadily Increases, suggesting that figure is not manipulated.
The Unemployment Rate after 2008 was able to be artificially less by shifting more unemployed into the Want A Job category, which Obamanomics managed to increase to over 7 Million for the only time in the BLS tables. This Jan figure (Want A Job) didn't return to within 0.1% of 2008 level until 2018, after Trump's first year.
The figure of Unemployed plus Want A Job is indisputably the real Unfake Unemployment figure.

The Labor Force Participation Rate steadily dropped each year until finally reversing in 2017, Trump's first year.

The Want A Job count maxxed out in Aug 2012, just as Obama was proclaiming that Unemployment Rates had dropped, which he needed to get below 8.0% by October, in order to win re-election.

Well, it looks like the current U6 right now is lower than every January of the past 20 years except for 2001 (tied) and 2000, according to BLS figures.

From 2009 to 2017, the Civilian uninstitutional Population grew by 19.343 Million. With a nominal post-9/11 Labor Participation Rate of 66%, the Labor Force would have grown by 12.766 Million. But Obama's Deep State reported that the Labor Force only grew by 5.231 Million. Labor Force is defined as all Employed + all Unemployed. So Obama would have you believe that during his 8 years, 7.5 Million extra Employ-eligible population were NOT unemployed (nor employed).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 13, 2018 7:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It's not readable here. You should probably link the source table, or create a google spreadsheet with the data.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Sure.
You find a source with all the relevent data, or create your spreadsheet, and then post it.

I'm not doing your work for you.

I'm also not debating your numbers until you can provide them in a readable format.

As far as I'm concerned, until you do either, you're just making those numbers up.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 13, 2018 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It's not readable here. You should probably link the source table, or create a google spreadsheet with the data.
Sure.
You find a source with all the relevent data, or create your spreadsheet, and then post it.

I'm not doing your work for you.

I'm also not debating your numbers until you can provide them in a readable format.

As far as I'm concerned, until you do either, you're just making those numbers up.

Are the figures in the split tables of last evening, around 8pm, in a readable format for you? If not, what is not readable? Are the rows word-wrapped?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 13, 2018 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It's not readable here. You should probably link the source table, or create a google spreadsheet with the data.
Sure.
You find a source with all the relevent data, or create your spreadsheet, and then post it.

I'm not doing your work for you.

I'm also not debating your numbers until you can provide them in a readable format.

As far as I'm concerned, until you do either, you're just making those numbers up.
Are the figures in the split tables of last evening, around 8pm, in a readable format for you? If not, what is not readable? Are the rows word-wrapped?

The rows are word wrapped. The column headers are longer than the columns in some instances, and not as long as the columns in other instances. The column headers are abbreviated and aren't always easy to figure out what they're for. Individual data is broken up by only a single space which also makes it almost impossible to read when you're talking about 400-500 points of data, especially when some rows have data with a different amount of total characters in each "cell" than another row.

Forums are not the place for this type of raw data to be displayed. I could be wrong about this, but even if FFF.NET was using cutting edge forum technology I don't believe that it would display graphs properly either.

Sorry man. I just get a headache looking at this. I'm pretty sure that you're looking at exactly what I'm looking at. I'm not sure how you think that's readable.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 13, 2018 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It's not readable here. You should probably link the source table, or create a google spreadsheet with the data.
Sure.
You find a source with all the relevent data, or create your spreadsheet, and then post it.
I'm not doing your work for you.

I'm also not debating your numbers until you can provide them in a readable format.

As far as I'm concerned, until you do either, you're just making those numbers up.
Are the figures in the split tables of last evening, around 8pm, in a readable format for you? If not, what is not readable? Are the rows word-wrapped?
The rows are word wrapped. The column headers are longer than the columns in some instances, and not as long as the columns in other instances. The column headers are abbreviated and aren't always easy to figure out what they're for. Individual data is broken up by only a single space which also makes it almost impossible to read when you're talking about 400-500 points of data, especially when some rows have data with a different amount of total characters in each "cell" than another row.

Forums are not the place for this type of raw data to be displayed. I could be wrong about this, but even if FFF.NET was using cutting edge forum technology I don't believe that it would display graphs properly either.

Sorry man. I just get a headache looking at this. I'm pretty sure that you're looking at exactly what I'm looking at. I'm not sure how you think that's readable.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

OK. I'm not getting a word wrap, or else I would know what you see.
Can you tell me, for instance, which header word is where the wrap starts for you?

Thanks for your help.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 14, 2018 5:00 AM

Adding to this Table of Data, which seems to best show the components of U6:

Quote:

I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow. The documented shenanigans of Obamabots deliberately refusing to Report jobless data in the months before the 2012 Election are a different matter, I will just use the Fake Data they produced and pretend it was real.

The BLS uses both Seasonally Adjusted figures and Unadjusted figures, and interchanges them without clearly identifying so. For example, the current Rate of 4.1% (for 4 months straight) is SeasAdj, and the real Rate is 4.5% for Jan 2018. I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.

Some numbers may have a 0 placed as first digit, to maintain column form in this format.

The 1st column of numbers is the unemployed. The 2nd column is the Rate.
The 3rd column is what is called Marginally Attached to the Labor Force, which is included in the Want A Job Now category but NOT included in the Labor Force category and therefore excluded from the reported Unemployment category. The 5th column is the sum of Unemployed plus Marginally Attached - which more accurately represents the Actual Unemployed. The 6th column is the Rate for column 5 figure.
The 7th column is the Involuntary Part-Time workers, who are Not Employed Full Time due to poor Economy, and want, are able to work FT. The 8th column is the sum of the 5th column plus 7th column. 9th column is the Rate for column 8 figure.
The 10th column is the Civilian Population. 11th column is Labor Force, 12th column is Participation Rate. 13th column is the published U-6 figure.

Figures in thousands.

Mo/Yr Unemp Pcnt MrgAt Pcnt SubTtl Prcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc% U6%
Jan94 09492 07.3% 2120 1.6% 11612 09.0% 4963 3.8% 16575 12.8% 195953 129393 66.0
Jan95 08101 06.2% 1783 1.4% 09884 07.6% 4620 3.5% 14504 11.1% 197753 130698 66.1
Jan96 08270 06.3% 1737 1.3% 10007 07.6% 4103 3.1% 14110 10.7% 199634 131396 65.8 10.8
Jan97 07933 05.9% 1615 1.2% 09548 07.1% 4338 3.2% 13886 10.3% 202285 134317 66.4 10.4
Jan98 07069 05.2% 1479 1.1% 08548 06.3% 4090 3.0% 12638 09.3% 204238 135951 66.6 09.3
Jan99 06604 04.8% 1358 1.0% 07962 05.8% 3645 2.6% 11607 08.4% 206719 137943 66.7 08.5
Jan00 06316 04.5% 1197 0.9% 07513 05.4% 3355 2.4% 10868 07.8% 208782 139621 66.9 07.8
Jan01 06647 04.7% 1290 0.9% 07937 05.6% 3559 2.5% 11496 08.2% 210889 141049 66.9 08.1
Jan02 08935 06.3% 1509 1.1% 10444 07.4% 4249 3.0% 14693 10.4% 213089 141074 66.2 10.5

Jan02 09051 06.3% 1532 1.1% 10583 07.4% 4453 3.1% 15036 10.5% 216506 143228 66.2 10.5
Jan03 09395 06.5% 1598 1.1% 10993 07.6% 5003 3.4% 15996 11.0% 219897 145301 66.1 11.0
Jan04 09144 06.3% 1670 1.1% 10814 07.4% 5152 3.5% 15966 10.9% 222161 146068 65.7 10.9
Jan05 08444 05.7% 1804 1.2% 10248 07.0% 4793 3.3% 15041 10.2% 224837 147125 65.4 10.2
Jan06 07608 05.1% 1644 1.1% 09252 06.2% 4513 3.0% 13765 09.2% 227553 149090 65.5 09.2
Jan07 07649 05.0% 1577 1.0% 09226 06.1% 4620 3.0% 13846 09.1% 230650 151924 65.9 09.1
Jan08 08221 05.4% 1729 1.1% 09950 06.5% 5235 3.4% 15185 09.9% 232616 152828 65.7 09.9
Jan09 13009 08.5% 2130 1.4% 15139 09.9% 8675 5.6% 23814 15.5% 234739 153445 65.4 15.4
Jan10 16147 10.6% 2539 1.6% 18686 12.2% 9161 6.0% 27847 18.2% 236832 152957 64.6 18.0
Jan11 14937 09.8% 2800 1.8% 17737 11.6% 9027 5.9% 26764 17.5% 238704 152536 63.9 17.3
Jan12 13541 08.8% 2809 1.9% 16350 10.7% 8747 5.7% 25097 16.4% 242269 153485 63.4 16.2
Jan13 13181 08.5% 2443 1.6% 15624 10.1% 8506 5.5% 24130 15.6% 244663 154794 63.3 15.4
Jan14 10855 07.0% 2592 1.7% 13447 08.7% 7617 4.9% 21064 13.6% 246915 154381 62.5 13.5
Jan15 09498 06.1% 2234 1.4% 11732 07.5% 7125 4.6% 18857 12.1% 249723 156050 62.5 12.0
Jan16 08309 05.3% 2089 1.3% 10398 06.6% 6234 4.0% 16632 10.6% 252397 157347 62.3 10.5
Jan17 08149 05.1% 1752 1.1% 09901 06.2% 6127 3.9% 16028 10.1% 254082 158676 62.5 10.1
Jan18 07189 04.5% 1653 1.0% 08842 05.5% 5380 3.4% 14222 08.9% 256780 160037 62.3 08.9

Feb18 07091 04.4% 1602 1.0% 08693 05.4% 5241 3.2% 13934 08.6% 256934 161494 62.9 08.6
Mar18 06671 04.1% 1454 0.9% 08125 05.0% 4975 3.1% 13100 08.1% 257097 161548 62.8 08.1

Jul 12 13400 08.6% 2529 1.6% 15929 10.2% 8218 5.2% 24147 15.4% 243354 156526 64.3
Aug12 12696 08.2% 2561 1.6% 15257 09.8% 7723 5.0% 22980 14.8% 243566 155255 63.7
Sep12 11742 07.6% 2517 1.6% 14259 09.2% 8003 5.2% 22262 14.4% 243772 155075 63.6
Oct12 11741 07.5% 2433 1.6% 14174 09.1% 7768 5.0% 21942 14.1% 243983 155779 63.8
Nov12 11404 07.4% 2505 1.6% 13909 09.0% 7898 5.1% 21807 14.1% 244174 154953 63.5

Quote:

Comparing to The Great Depression: the Unemployment peaked in 1933 at 24.75% with 12.830 Million unemployed. In 1932 there were 12.060 M unemployed, and 11.340M in 1934, 10.610 in 1935.
The 5 year stretch from 2009 to 2014 exceeded 12.9 Million each year, more Unemployed than the Great Depression. And 2014 was only less with the Fake figure, but including Marginally Attached was still more than Great Depression.

The Civilian Adult Population steadily Increases, suggesting that figure is not manipulated.
The Unemployment Rate was almost doubled by Jan 2010, and the Fake figure didn't return to 2008 level until Jan 2016. This figure after 2008 was able to be artificially less by shifting more unemployed into the Marginally Attached category, which Obamanomics managed to almost double. This Jan figure didn't return to 2008 level until 2017, after Trump was Elected. With 10 Million in 2008, this count did not fall back to sub-10 Million until 2017.
The figure of Unemployed plus Marginally Attached is indisputably the real Unfake Unemployment figure. It does not return to Jan 2008 level until 2017, after Trump was Elected.
With Obamanomics pushing more into the Involuntary Part-Time group, this also got bloated to disguise the horrible Unemployment problems, and this Rate did not return to 2008 level until 2018.

The Jan Rate of all 3 categories combined of Obamanomics Unemployment did not fall back to 2008 level until 2018.
By 2016 the Marginally Attached plus Involuntary Part-Time counts were more than the Fake Unemployment count.

The Labor Force Participation Rate steadily dropped each year until finally reversing in 2017, Trump's first year.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 14, 2018 5:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It's not readable here. You should probably link the source table, or create a google spreadsheet with the data.
Sure.
You find a source with all the relevent data, or create your spreadsheet, and then post it.
I'm not doing your work for you.

I'm also not debating your numbers until you can provide them in a readable format.

As far as I'm concerned, until you do either, you're just making those numbers up.
Are the figures in the split tables of last evening, around 8pm, in a readable format for you? If not, what is not readable? Are the rows word-wrapped?
The rows are word wrapped. The column headers are longer than the columns in some instances, and not as long as the columns in other instances. The column headers are abbreviated and aren't always easy to figure out what they're for. Individual data is broken up by only a single space which also makes it almost impossible to read when you're talking about 400-500 points of data, especially when some rows have data with a different amount of total characters in each "cell" than another row.

Forums are not the place for this type of raw data to be displayed. I could be wrong about this, but even if FFF.NET was using cutting edge forum technology I don't believe that it would display graphs properly either.

Sorry man. I just get a headache looking at this. I'm pretty sure that you're looking at exactly what I'm looking at. I'm not sure how you think that's readable.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
OK. I'm not getting a word wrap, or else I would know what you see.
Can you tell me, for instance, which header word is where the wrap starts for you?

Thanks for your help.

Just taking a random line from your post, here's what I'm looking at:

Jan02 09051 06.3% 4938 3.4% 13989 09.8% 4453 3.1% 18442 12.9% 216506 143228 66.2 10.5

The last figure of that line is 216506.

So the wrapped part of the line is "143228 66.2 10.5"

On my screen that line reads as follows:

Jan02 09051 06.3% 4938 3.4% 13989 09.8% 4453 3.1% 18442 12.9% 216506
143228 66.2 10.5

Every line looks like this, so you can imagine how difficult it would be to try to match any of this data up to the Column Headers.

In fact, the column header now looks like this to me:

Mo/Yr Unemp Pcnt WAJb Pcnt SubTtl Prcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc%
U-6%

With the "U-6%" on the second line.

It should be noted that this entire post looks different than it did before you asked the question. I don't believe it was in bold before. I'm sure that adding it in bold only increases the amount that shows up on the second line, but even when it wasn't bold this data never fit on one line per row.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 14, 2018 6:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm also not debating your numbers until you can provide them in a readable format.

As far as I'm concerned, until you do either, you're just making those numbers up.
Are the figures in the split tables of last evening, around 8pm, in a readable format for you? If not, what is not readable? Are the rows word-wrapped?
The rows are word wrapped. The column headers are longer than the columns in some instances, and not as long as the columns in other instances. The column headers are abbreviated and aren't always easy to figure out what they're for. Individual data is broken up by only a single space which also makes it almost impossible to read when you're talking about 400-500 points of data, especially when some rows have data with a different amount of total characters in each "cell" than another row.

Forums are not the place for this type of raw data to be displayed. I could be wrong about this, but even if FFF.NET was using cutting edge forum technology I don't believe that it would display graphs properly either.

Sorry man. I just get a headache looking at this. I'm pretty sure that you're looking at exactly what I'm looking at. I'm not sure how you think that's readable.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
OK. I'm not getting a word wrap, or else I would know what you see.
Can you tell me, for instance, which header word is where the wrap starts for you?

Thanks for your help.
Just taking a random line from your post, here's what I'm looking at:

Jan02 09051 06.3% 4938 3.4% 13989 09.8% 4453 3.1% 18442 12.9% 216506 143228 66.2 10.5

The last figure of that line is 216506.

So the wrapped part of the line is "143228 66.2 10.5"

On my screen that line reads as follows:
Jan02 09051 06.3% 4938 3.4% 13989 09.8% 4453 3.1% 18442 12.9% 216506
143228 66.2 10.5

Every line looks like this, so you can imagine how difficult it would be to try to match any of this data up to the Column Headers.

In fact, the column header now looks like this to me:

Mo/Yr Unemp Pcnt WAJb Pcnt SubTtl Prcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc%
U-6%

With the "U-6%" on the second line.

It should be noted that this entire post looks different than it did before you asked the question. I don't believe it was in bold before. I'm sure that adding it in bold only increases the amount that shows up on the second line, but even when it wasn't bold this data never fit on one line per row.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Thanks for the info. I will try to make adjustments, but not tonight.

So the 2 Split Tables are also both still word-wrapping for you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 14, 2018 8:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Thanks for the info. I will try to make adjustments, but not tonight.

So the 2 Split Tables are also both still word-wrapping for you?

No problem.

The last post you made with table data is not word wrapping.

That's not to say that it's easy to read, because it still isn't on a forum, but at least the word wrapping isn't getting in the way on that post.

EDIT:

My mistake. Two lines are still wrapping. The last column wraps on these two lines:

Feb2018 07091 04.4% 1602 1.0% 08693 05.4% 5241 3.2% 13934 08.6% 256934 161494 62.9 08.6
Mar2018 06671 04.1% 1454 0.9% 08125 05.0% 4975 3.1% 13100 08.1% 257097 161548 62.8 08.1

It looks like there is the same amount of characters in the lines, but I think that "Feb" and "Mar" might just be slightly larger than "Jan".

I wonder if you can change to a mono-spaced font in here with a tag? I'm not sure what one would be good though. "Courier New" is mono-spaced, but it's rather wide and you'd be wrapping the rows for sure if you used it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 14, 2018 11:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Thanks for the info. I will try to make adjustments, but not tonight.

So the 2 Split Tables are also both still word-wrapping for you?
No problem.

The last post you made with table data is not word wrapping.

That's not to say that it's easy to read, because it still isn't on a forum, but at least the word wrapping isn't getting in the way on that post.

EDIT:
My mistake. Two lines are still wrapping. The last column wraps on these two lines:

Feb2018 07091 04.4% 1602 1.0% 08693 05.4% 5241 3.2% 13934 08.6% 256934 161494 62.9 08.6
Mar2018 06671 04.1% 1454 0.9% 08125 05.0% 4975 3.1% 13100 08.1% 257097 161548 62.8 08.1

It looks like there is the same amount of characters in the lines, but I think that "Feb" and "Mar" might just be slightly larger than "Jan".

I wonder if you can change to a mono-spaced font in here with a tag? I'm not sure what one would be good though. "Courier New" is mono-spaced, but it's rather wide and you'd be wrapping the rows for sure if you used it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I wish this site had Courier New, my life would be so much easier.

Are those 2 lines still wrapping now?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 17, 2018 6:57 PM

The data in my Tables regarding Unemployment Rates are compiled from the BLS Reports.

Here is a link to the Reports, you may dig for and confirm/verify any data you choose:

https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/home.htm

The reports provide the current data, plus the data from the report 12 months prior. Except from Jan 2002, where the data from that report and previous years are not compatible or adjusted to mesh with the Jan 2003 report of Jan 2002 data plus all later reports.

The Unemployed count and associated Unemployment Rate are found in Table A-1 of each report. The Rate is defined as the count divided by the Civilian Labor Force.

The Want A Job data is found sometimes in Table A-1 or in a later Table of the A series, depending upon which year of the report. The percentage is the count divided by Civilian Labor Force.

The Marginally Attached data is, with various descriptions, in one of the A-series Tables, the specific location changing depending upon which year of the report. The percentage is the count divided by Civilian Labor Force.

The Subtotal is the first 2 data columns summed, and then the percent is after division by Civilian Labor Force.

Involuntary Part-Time is listed, with various descriptions, in one of the later A-series Tables, differing dependant upon the year of the report. The percentage is the count divided by Civilian Labor Force.

The total is the sum of the Subtotal and InvPT. Division by Civilian Labor Force produces the percent.

The Civilian uninstitutional Population, the Civilian Labor Force, and the Labor Participation Rate are located in Table A-1 of each report. The Participation Rate is defined as Civilian Labor Force divided by Civilian uninstitutional Population. The Labor Force is defined as Employed plus Unemployed.

The U-6 figure is usually found in one of the middle or later A-series Tables. The figure published does not always seem to match what the proclaimed definition produces.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The data in my Tables regarding Unemployment Rates are compiled from the BLS Reports.

Here is a link to the Reports, you may dig for and confirm/verify any data you choose:

https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/home.htm

I can see now why you were reluctant to go the extra mile. I had no idea that you were compiling data from that site.

Why do I get the feeling that this stuff is intentionally obfuscated?

There is nothing at all intuitive about that website. I applaud your efforts to try to put the data together. We'll have to figure out a way to make it intelligible outside of this forum.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 18, 2018 1:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The data in my Tables regarding Unemployment Rates are compiled from the BLS Reports.

Here is a link to the Reports, you may dig for and confirm/verify any data you choose:

https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/home.htm
I can see now why you were reluctant to go the extra mile. I had no idea that you were compiling data from that site.

Why do I get the feeling that this stuff is intentionally obfuscated?

There is nothing at all intuitive about that website. I applaud your efforts to try to put the data together. We'll have to figure out a way to make it intelligible outside of this forum.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Well, now that I've compiled the data from disparate source locations, it should be relatively easy to transfer to your preferred format template. Select the "reply with quote" function, select and move the text to a word processing document to work with it, delete the font commands that I added in, then most format templates will allow a merge of columns and rows into the format.

You could even command Courier New font, reduce Font Size to your liking (or use Landscape Orientation), and convert to PDF.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 20, 2018 5:46 PM

Here is a linky to the Food Stamp data, recipients and expenditures. Apparently Libtards have been feverishly denying any and all numbers in this report, since it reflects badly upon Obama.

[img] https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf[/img]

And I'll try to list some of that data here.

Figures in millions.

Year Particip Expndtr %Pop

2005 25.628
2006 26.549
2007 26.316
2008 28.223
2009 33.490
2010 40.302
2011 44.709
2012 46.609
2013 47.636
2014 46.664
2015 45.767
2016 44.219
2017 42.205 $68.108

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 22, 2018 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Here is a linky to the Food Stamp data, recipients and expenditures. Apparently Libtards have been feverishly denying any and all numbers in this report, since it reflects badly upon Obama.

https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf

Obama got a late start in 2009, but kicked off 2017 with plenty of waste. From the years of Obamanomics 2009-2017, adding up all the participants comes to 391,601,000 participant-years. Accounting for 34% of the entire lifetime of the freeloading program.

The grand total of Food Stamp participants before Obama was only 749,396,000 from 1969-2008 (40 years).

The 16 years prior to Obamanomics (1993-2008) totalled 380,853,000.

The first 34 years of Food Stamps (1969-1992) summed to 368,543,000.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 23, 2018 8:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Here is a linky to the Food Stamp data, recipients and expenditures. Apparently Libtards have been feverishly denying any and all numbers in this report, since it reflects badly upon Obama.

https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
Obama got a late start in 2009, but kicked off 2017 with plenty of waste. From the years of Obamanomics 2009-2017, adding up all the participants comes to 391,601,000 participant-years. Accounting for 34% of the entire lifetime of the freeloading program.

The grand total of Food Stamp participants before Obama was only 749,396,000 from 1969-2008 (40 years).

The 16 years prior to Obamanomics (1993-2008) totalled 380,853,000.

The first 34 years of Food Stamps (1969-1992) summed to 368,543,000.

I don't consider it a freeloading program.

When I think about all of the wasteful expenditures of my tax dollars, providing food for people isn't one that particularly annoys me. Are there people who benefit from it that shouldn't? I'm sure the answer to that is yes. But there are a lot of people who depend on it.

It's amazing how quickly a "good person" could turn "bad" when they're starving. Unless you live in a gated and armed community, I would view paying for food stamps as one of the most sensible tax expenditures that you have as somebody fortunate enough to still have gainful employment in 2018.

It's one of the reasons your home isn't being broken into every other day.

Sure. I know you're personally armed and that breaking into your home wouldn't end in a very favorable result by anyone foolish enough to attempt to do it, but really, do you want that hassle of calling the cops and having a hazmat crew come in and clean up the mess?

Do you have any idea how much a hazmat team costs per call? I actually do. It usually ranges between $10,000 and $15,000 per minor incident.

You're not going to be the one paying for that cleanup when it happens, so who pays for it? That's right. The American tax payer. So now you've just cost the American Taxpayer about 12 times the cost of a single person's maximum yearly food stamp benefits to clean somebody off of your walls and floor who used to receive the benefits.

And then next month when somebody else tries it, you're going to spend another dozen people's full year of food stamp benefits on a single cleanup procedure.

Wash, rinse, repeat...

Well.... that is assuming you never miss your target.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 23, 2018 2:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Here is a linky to the Food Stamp data, recipients and expenditures. Apparently Libtards have been feverishly denying any and all numbers in this report, since it reflects badly upon Obama.

https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
Obama got a late start in 2009, but kicked off 2017 with plenty of waste. From the years of Obamanomics 2009-2017, adding up all the participants comes to 391,601,000 participant-years. Accounting for 34% of the entire lifetime of the freeloading program.

The grand total of Food Stamp participants before Obama was only 749,396,000 from 1969-2008 (40 years).

The 16 years prior to Obamanomics (1993-2008) totalled 380,853,000.

The first 34 years of Food Stamps (1969-1992) summed to 368,543,000.
I don't consider it a freeloading program.

When I think about all of the wasteful expenditures of my tax dollars, providing food for people isn't one that particularly annoys me. Are there people who benefit from it that shouldn't? I'm sure the answer to that is yes. But there are a lot of people who depend on it.

It's amazing how quickly a "good person" could turn "bad" when they're starving. Unless you live in a gated and armed community, I would view paying for food stamps as one of the most sensible tax expenditures that you have as somebody fortunate enough to still have gainful employment in 2018.

It's one of the reasons your home isn't being broken into every other day.

In the reports I was reading on the Food Stamp program, it was pointed out that about 1% of the population needed food assistance. But over 14% have been receiving it.

Providing the assistance to those who need it is an essential portion of the Social Safety Net.
The remaining abuse is wasteful spending on parasites, to the detriment of the truly needy and deserving.
Spurring participants to avoid gainful employment in order to get Free Government Money is wasteful spending.
Government handouts to Illegal Aliens is wasteful spending.

Wasting $65 Billion extra on a $5 Billion program does not seem truly beneficial.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 23, 2018 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Here is a linky to the Food Stamp data, recipients and expenditures. Apparently Libtards have been feverishly denying any and all numbers in this report, since it reflects badly upon Obama.

https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
Obama got a late start in 2009, but kicked off 2017 with plenty of waste. From the years of Obamanomics 2009-2017, adding up all the participants comes to 391,601,000 participant-years. Accounting for 34% of the entire lifetime of the freeloading program.

The grand total of Food Stamp participants before Obama was only 749,396,000 from 1969-2008 (40 years).

The 16 years prior to Obamanomics (1993-2008) totalled 380,853,000.

The first 34 years of Food Stamps (1969-1992) summed to 368,543,000.
I don't consider it a freeloading program.

When I think about all of the wasteful expenditures of my tax dollars, providing food for people isn't one that particularly annoys me. Are there people who benefit from it that shouldn't? I'm sure the answer to that is yes. But there are a lot of people who depend on it.

It's amazing how quickly a "good person" could turn "bad" when they're starving. Unless you live in a gated and armed community, I would view paying for food stamps as one of the most sensible tax expenditures that you have as somebody fortunate enough to still have gainful employment in 2018.

It's one of the reasons your home isn't being broken into every other day.
In the reports I was reading on the Food Stamp program, it was pointed out that about 1% of the population needed food assistance. But over 14% have been receiving it.

Providing the assistance to those who need it is an essential portion of the Social Safety Net.
The remaining abuse is wasteful spending on parasites, to the detriment of the truly needy and deserving.
Spurring participants to avoid gainful employment in order to get Free Government Money is wasteful spending.
Government handouts to Illegal Aliens is wasteful spending.

Wasting $65 Billion extra on a $5 Billion program does not seem truly beneficial.

You've never been on them, so I think you have a very limited perspective of it. I'd say the same thing for anybody who wrote that report.

I don't think you have any idea what it means to live on a wage making around 10 to 12 thousand per year.

Fortunately, I don't have a mortgage or rent, and even more fortunately I don't have children to feed. I can only imagine that it's near impossible to raise and feed children on that kind of money. Especially if you're a single parent.

Feel free to sit back and judge other people for the positions they find themselves in because of the choices they've made. But that's not going to give them education or training they need to put themselves in a better one. It's not going to put food on the table either.

I do have to say that I liked that I was cut off after I wasn't working anymore. I don't think anybody should be getting food stamps if they're not willing to work 20 hours a week. And now that I am working again I make too much money to get them anyhow. I'm looking at clearing $14 in 2018 before taxes.

Talk to me about who needs food assistance the next time you make less than that in a year.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 23, 2018 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Here is a linky to the Food Stamp data, recipients and expenditures. Apparently Libtards have been feverishly denying any and all numbers in this report, since it reflects badly upon Obama.

https://fns-prod.azure
edge.net/sites/default/fil
es/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
Obama got a late start in 2009, but kicked off 2017 with plenty of waste. From the years of Obamanomics 2009-2017, adding up all the participants comes to 391,601,000 participant-years. Accounting for 34% of the entire lifetime of the freeloading program.

The grand total of Food Stamp participants before Obama was only 749,396,000 from 1969-2008 (40 years).

The 16 years prior to Obamanomics (1993-2008) totalled 380,853,000.

The first 34 years of Food Stamps (1969-1992) summed to 368,543,000.
I don't consider it a freeloading program.

When I think about all of the wasteful expenditures of my tax dollars, providing food for people isn't one that particularly annoys me. Are there people who benefit from it that shouldn't? I'm sure the answer to that is yes. But there are a lot of people who depend on it.

It's amazing how quickly a "good person" could turn "bad" when they're starving. Unless you live in a gated and armed community, I would view paying for food stamps as one of the most sensible tax expenditures that you have as somebody fortunate enough to still have gainful employment in 2018.

It's one of the reasons your home isn't being broken into every other day.
In the reports I was reading on the Food Stamp program, it was pointed out that about 1% of the population needed food assistance. But over 14% have been receiving it.

Providing the assistance to those who need it is an essential portion of the Social Safety Net.
The remaining abuse is wasteful spending on parasites, to the detriment of the truly needy and deserving.
Spurring participants to avoid gainful employment in order to get Free Government Money is wasteful spending.
Government handouts to Illegal Aliens is wasteful spending.

Wasting $65 Billion extra on a $5 Billion program does not seem truly beneficial.
You've never been on them, so I think you have a very limited perspective of it. I'd say the same thing for anybody who wrote that report.

I don't think you have any idea what it means to live on a wage making around 10 to 12 thousand per year.

Fortunately, I don't have a mortgage or rent, and even more fortunately I don't have children to feed. I can only imagine that it's near impossible to raise and feed children on that kind of money. Especially if you're a single parent.

Feel free to sit back and judge other people for the positions they find themselves in because of the choices they've made. But that's not going to give them education or training they need to put themselves in a better one. It's not going to put food on the table either.

I do have to say that I liked that I was cut off after I wasn't working anymore. I don't think anybody should be getting food stamps if they're not willing to work 20 hours a week. And now that I am working again I make too much money to get them anyhow. I'm looking at clearing $14 in 2018 before taxes.

Talk to me about who needs food assistance the next time you make less than that in a year.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I don't think I said there was no need.
$10-12k per year. That would be about $5-6 per hour for 40 hours per week, with no overtime or tips. Or about $10-12 per hour for 20 hours per week.
Of those who are the breadwinners in a family, how many in America do you think have income of $10-12k per year?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 23, 2018 8:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I don't think I said there was no need.
$10-12k per year. That would be about $5-6 per hour for 40 hours per week, with no overtime or tips. Or about $10-12 per hour for 20 hours per week.
Of those who are the breadwinners in a family, how many in America do you think have income of $10-12k per year?

I wouldn't know. There's a lot of adults working jobs that children used to work these days. Many of them pay national minimum wage or very close to it. Most of them aren't full time and provide zero benefits. I've worked enough shitty jobs to know this.

I think maybe you need to slum it for a while and walk a mile in another man's shoes before you speak about things.

Either that, or start bitching about where your tax dollars are going other than to provide food for people who need it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 23, 2018 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I don't think I said there was no need.
$10-12k per year. That would be about $5-6 per hour for 40 hours per week, with no overtime or tips. Or about $10-12 per hour for 20 hours per week.
Of those who are the breadwinners in a family, how many in America do you think have income of $10-12k per year?
I wouldn't know. There's a lot of adults working jobs that children used to work these days. Many of them pay national minimum wage or very close to it. Most of them aren't full time and provide zero benefits. I've worked enough shitty jobs to know this.

I think maybe you need to slum it for a while and walk a mile in another man's shoes before you speak about things.

Either that, or start bitching about where your tax dollars are going other than to provide food for people who need it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I said breadwinners. Such as Head of Families.
If a person has no income and chooses to pile on expenses like housing and cable, how is that your fault or mine?

Do you really feel more than 3 Million American Citizens fall into that boat?

You must have not read any of my posts here since 2007. For Tea Party Patriots like myself, few topics are bitched about more than wasteful Government Spending, Federal Debt, Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and I am certain I have posted about it here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I don't think I said there was no need.
$10-12k per year. That would be about $5-6 per hour for 40 hours per week, with no overtime or tips. Or about $10-12 per hour for 20 hours per week.
Of those who are the breadwinners in a family, how many in America do you think have income of $10-12k per year?
I wouldn't know. There's a lot of adults working jobs that children used to work these days. Many of them pay national minimum wage or very close to it. Most of them aren't full time and provide zero benefits. I've worked enough shitty jobs to know this.

I think maybe you need to slum it for a while and walk a mile in another man's shoes before you speak about things.

Either that, or start bitching about where your tax dollars are going other than to provide food for people who need it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
I said breadwinners. Such as Head of Families.

What is a breadwinner these days? That term doesn't hold any meaning if you've got two parents working part time, near minimum wage jobs, or a single parent trying to balance 2 or 3 of them. Quite a few of the people I've worked with manage to eek out more than 40 hours a week at almost worthless pay by having more than one job. That in itself is a stress I'm grateful not to have myself. No employer wants to work around another employer's schedule.

Quote:
If a person has no income and chooses to pile on expenses like housing and cable, how is that your fault or mine?

I agree about the cable, and also high priced cell plans, and a lot of other bad financial choices. But what about housing? What do you mean by that? Should people working these jobs and their children be homeless? Apartment rent isn't cheap either, and in many cases even in 2018 a monthly mortgage is less than rent.

I'll let you throw out an average justifiable monthly cost of housing. Multiply that by 12 and subtract it from these part time wages for a year, and then imagine how far the rest of that money goes.

Quote:
Do you really feel more than 3 Million American Citizens fall into that boat?

That would be less than 1%. If you include children, which you should because we're talking about how many people can or can't afford to eat without subsidies, then yes I absolutely do.

Quote:
You must have not read any of my posts here since 2007. For Tea Party Patriots like myself, few topics are bitched about more than wasteful Government Spending, Federal Debt, Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and I am certain I have posted about it here.

I don't label myself Tea Party or anything else, but I'd probably agree with you on 90% or more of other topics surrounding wasteful spending. Food, for many reasons, just isn't one of them.

I'm not going to deny that there are cases where this system is abused. Unfortunately, once in the program a lot of the stuff is automated without a ton of oversight. It's kind of a necessity that it is though because it's expensive to do intense moderating of these programs and at some point you'd be spending more on the oversight than you would on providing the benefits themselves.

As I originally stated, at the very least it takes away any need for anyone to be burglarizing houses or pulling a weapon on you out in the street for your wallet because they (or thier kids) haven't eaten in 3 days.

Even at 65 billion dollars a year, that doesn't seem like that high a price to pay when you compare it to other massive wastes of taxpayer dollars out there that in no way benefit anybody.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 7:50 AM

ADDENDUM:

Now... since we're on the topic I feel that I should state that the limit to what you can buy with the food stamp program should be much more tightly regulated, and I'm not at all buying any of the bullshit excuses about why they haven't yet done it.

Firstly, you absolutely cannot buy any product that is non-consumable. You also cannot buy cigarettes and booze with the food stamps. This has been set in stone and because of computers you simply cannot find a way around it. There is no instances of employees "cutting somebody a break" and giving them restricted items with the foodstamps.

There is ZERO reason why this shouldn't be applied to many other things that are commonly bought with food stamps. It would not cost much upfront to implement because all it would require is a few database changes that would add more stuff to the restricted items lists. (Most companies base their products by Category, so instead of having to manually restrict hundreds or thousands of items individually and continue to manually do it when a new product comes in, they can simply say that any item that falls under "Category 43" cannot be purchased with food stamps, for example).

Here's a few that I'd restrict, effective immediately, if I had the power to do so:

1. Soda. Any type. Any flavor. Diet or non diet. All carbonated beverages. This especially includes the expensive Monster and Red Bull type "energy" drinks that has god knows what in them.

2. Coffee.

3. Candy of any type.

4. Cookies, cupcakes, cake, etc.

5. Chips/Cheetos, etc.

6. Bottled water.

With the exception of the water, none of these things are good for you and none of these things are necessary for sustenance. As with smoking or drinking or any other unhealthy behaviors, the poorest of people are the most likely to indulge in overeating of bad foods.

If we're going to tax the hell out of the privilege of smoking cigarettes, there is no reason we shouldn't be trying to force people who get food from the government to eat healthier (and ultimately lower future health care/disability costs).

As for the water, unless they live in a place like Flynt Michigan, there is no need to be paying for something that is already free.

They can still buy these things themselves of course, but they have to do it with their own earned income. At that point they can ask themselves if cable TV or Hostess Cupcakes are more important to them.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 29, 2018 3:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Unquoted for clarity:

Adding to this Table of Data, which seems to best show the components of U6:

Quote:

I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow. The documented shenanigans of Obamabots deliberately refusing to Report jobless data in the months before the 2012 Election are a different matter, I will just use the Fake Data they produced and pretend it was real.

The BLS uses both Seasonally Adjusted figures and Unadjusted figures, and interchanges them without clearly identifying so. For example, the current Rate of 4.1% (for 4 months straight) is SeasAdj, and the real Rate is 4.5% for Jan 2018. I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.

Some numbers may have a 0 placed as first digit, to maintain column form in this format.

The 1st column of numbers is the unemployed. The 2nd column is the Rate.
The 3rd column is what is called Marginally Attached to the Labor Force, which is included in the Want A Job Now category but NOT included in the Labor Force category and therefore excluded from the reported Unemployment category. The 5th column is the sum of Unemployed plus Marginally Attached - which more accurately represents the Actual Unemployed. The 6th column is the Rate for column 5 figure.
The 7th column is the Involuntary Part-Time workers, who are Not Employed Full Time due to poor Economy, and want, are able to work FT. The 8th column is the sum of the 5th column plus 7th column. 9th column is the Rate for column 8 figure.
The 10th column is the Civilian Population. 11th column is Labor Force, 12th column is Participation Rate. 13th column is the published U-6 figure.

Figures in thousands.

Mo/Yr Unemp Pcnt MrgAt Pcnt SubTtl Prcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc% U6%
Jan94 09492 07.3 2120 1.6 11612 09.0 4963 3.8 16575 12.8% 195953 129393 66.0
Jan95 08101 06.2 1783 1.4 09884 07.6 4620 3.5 14504 11.1% 197753 130698 66.1
Jan96 08270 06.3 1737 1.3 10007 07.6 4103 3.1 14110 10.7% 199634 131396 65.8 10.8
Jan97 07933 05.9 1615 1.2 09548 07.1 4338 3.2 13886 10.3% 202285 134317 66.4 10.4
Jan98 07069 05.2 1479 1.1 08548 06.3 4090 3.0 12638 09.3% 204238 135951 66.6 09.3
Jan99 06604 04.8 1358 1.0 07962 05.8 3645 2.6 11607 08.4% 206719 137943 66.7 08.5
Jan00 06316 04.5 1197 0.9 07513 05.4 3355 2.4 10868 07.8% 208782 139621 66.9 07.8
Jan01 06647 04.7 1290 0.9 07937 05.6 3559 2.5 11496 08.2% 210889 141049 66.9 08.1
Jan02 08935 06.3 1509 1.1 10444 07.4 4249 3.0 14693 10.4% 213089 141074 66.2 10.5

Jan02 09051 06.3 1532 1.1 10583 07.4 4453 3.1 15036 10.5% 216506 143228 66.2 10.5
Jan03 09395 06.5 1598 1.1 10993 07.6 5003 3.4 15996 11.0% 219897 145301 66.1 11.0
Jan04 09144 06.3 1670 1.1 10814 07.4 5152 3.5 15966 10.9% 222161 146068 65.7 10.9
Jan05 08444 05.7 1804 1.2 10248 07.0 4793 3.3 15041 10.2% 224837 147125 65.4 10.2
Jan06 07608 05.1 1644 1.1 09252 06.2 4513 3.0 13765 09.2% 227553 149090 65.5 09.2
Jan07 07649 05.0 1577 1.0 09226 06.1 4620 3.0 13846 09.1% 230650 151924 65.9 09.1
Jan08 08221 05.4 1729 1.1 09950 06.5 5235 3.4 15185 09.9% 232616 152828 65.7 09.9
Jan09 13009 08.5 2130 1.4 15139 09.9 8675 5.6 23814 15.5% 234739 153445 65.4 15.4
Jan10 16147 10.6 2539 1.6 18686 12.2 9161 6.0 27847 18.2% 236832 152957 64.6 18.0
Jan11 14937 09.8 2800 1.8 17737 11.6 9027 5.9 26764 17.5% 238704 152536 63.9 17.3
Jan12 13541 08.8 2809 1.9 16350 10.7 8747 5.7 25097 16.4% 242269 153485 63.4 16.2
Jan13 13181 08.5 2443 1.6 15624 10.1 8506 5.5 24130 15.6% 244663 154794 63.3 15.4
Jan14 10855 07.0 2592 1.7 13447 08.7 7617 4.9 21064 13.6% 246915 154381 62.5 13.5
Jan15 09498 06.1 2234 1.4 11732 07.5 7125 4.6 18857 12.1% 249723 156050 62.5 12.0
Jan16 08309 05.3 2089 1.3 10398 06.6 6234 4.0 16632 10.6% 252397 157347 62.3 10.5
Jan17 08149 05.1 1752 1.1 09901 06.2 6127 3.9 16028 10.1% 254082 158676 62.5 10.1
Ja18 07189 04.5 1653 1.0 08842 05.5 5380 3.4 14222 08.9 256780 160037 62.3 08.9

Feb18 07091 04.4 1602 1.0 08693 05.4 5241 3.2 13934 08.6% 256934 161494 62.9 08.6
Mar18 06671 04.1 1454 0.9 08125 05.0 4975 3.1 13100 08.1% 257097 161548 62.8 08.1

Jul 12 13400 08.6 2529 1.6 15929 10.2 8218 5.2 24147 15.4% 243354 156526 64.3
Aug12 12696 08.2 2561 1.6 15257 09.8 7723 5.0 22980 14.8% 243566 155255 63.7
Sep12 11742 07.6 2517 1.6 14259 09.2 8003 5.2 22262 14.4% 243772 155075 63.6
Oct12 11741 07.5 2433 1.6 14174 09.1 7768 5.0 21942 14.1% 243983 155779 63.8
Nov12 11404 07.4 2505 1.6 13909 09.0 7898 5.1 21807 14.1 244174 154953 63.5

Quote:

Comparing to The Great Depression: the Unemployment peaked in 1933 at 24.75% with 12.830 Million unemployed. In 1932 there were 12.060 M unemployed, and 11.340M in 1934, 10.610 in 1935.
The 5 year stretch from 2009 to 2014 exceeded 12.9 Million each year, more Unemployed than the Great Depression. And 2014 was only less with the Fake figure, but including Marginally Attached was still more than Great Depression.

The Civilian Adult Population steadily Increases, suggesting that figure is not manipulated.
The Unemployment Rate was almost doubled by Jan 2010, and the Fake figure didn't return to 2008 level until Jan 2016. This figure after 2008 was able to be artificially less by shifting more unemployed into the Marginally Attached category, which Obamanomics managed to almost double. This Jan figure didn't return to 2008 level until 2017, after Trump was Elected. With 10 Million in 2008, this count did not fall back to sub-10 Million until 2017.
The figure of Unemployed plus Marginally Attached is indisputably the real Unfake Unemployment figure. It does not return to Jan 2008 level until 2017, after Trump was Elected.
With Obamanomics pushing more into the Involuntary Part-Time group, this also got bloated to disguise the horrible Unemployment problems, and this Rate did not return to 2008 level until 2018.

The Jan Rate of all 3 categories combined of Obamanomics Unemployment did not fall back to 2008 level until 2018.
By 2016 the Marginally Attached plus Involuntary Part-Time counts were more than the Fake Unemployment count.

The Labor Force Participation Rate steadily dropped each year until finally reversing in 2017, Trump's first year.

Some have mentioned concern regard a tight Labor Market, too many vacant jobs without enough bodies to fill them.
But we should remember to consider the Labor Participation Rate. At the turn of the century it was around 67%, and in the later Bush43 period it was 66%.
Just because Obamanomics was able to drive it down to the 62% range does not mean that is the new norm. That 5% loss of Participation Rate amounts to about 13 Million potential employees.
Sure, they may not need to live in their mom's basement anymore if they become employed, but life can just be rough.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 29, 2018 5:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
ADDENDUM:

Firstly, you absolutely cannot buy any product that is non-consumable. You also cannot buy cigarettes and booze with the food stamps. This has been set in stone and because of computers you simply cannot find a way around it. There is no instances of employees "cutting somebody a break" and giving them restricted items with the foodstamps.

I am not convinced that you are delusional enough to actually believe this. Maybe you are fatigued or off your meds. Or do you never read the news?

Quote:
There is ZERO reason why this shouldn't be applied to many other things that are commonly bought with food stamps. It would not cost much upfront to implement because all it would require is a few database changes that would add more stuff to the restricted items lists. (Most companies base their products by Category, so instead of having to manually restrict hundreds or thousands of items individually and continue to manually do it when a new product comes in, they can simply say that any item that falls under "Category 43" cannot be purchased with food stamps, for example).

Here's a few that I'd restrict, effective immediately, if I had the power to do so:

1. Soda. Any type. Any flavor. Diet or non diet. All carbonated beverages. This especially includes the expensive Monster and Red Bull type "energy" drinks that has god knows what in them.

2. Coffee.

3. Candy of any type.

4. Cookies, cupcakes, cake, etc.

5. Chips/Cheetos, etc.

6. Bottled water.

With the exception of the water, none of these things are good for you and none of these things are necessary for sustenance. As with smoking or drinking or any other unhealthy behaviors, the poorest of people are the most likely to indulge in overeating of bad foods.

If we're going to tax the hell out of the privilege of smoking cigarettes, there is no reason we shouldn't be trying to force people who get food from the government to eat healthier (and ultimately lower future health care/disability costs).

As for the water, unless they live in a place like Flynt Michigan, there is no need to be paying for something that is already free.

They can still buy these things themselves of course, but they have to do it with their own earned income. At that point they can ask themselves if cable TV or Hostess Cupcakes are more important to them.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I agree with 1, 3, 4, 5. I had thought they were already prohibited. Although Bakery products might be in the category of bread, which is a necessary staple.

Aren't these items controlled by each individual State?

I do not consume coffee, except as a flavor such as Mocha. But in an endeavor to support the goals of work, employment, productivity, I might consider it depravation to withhold a caffeine source, after already deleting soda. Certainly no need for Starbucks or Keurig, but the cheapest economy size of non-gourmet coffee seems reasonable.

Your stereotyping of poor people as being different from others merely because of the greater availability of tobacco and alcohol compared to your favorites of pot and coke is cringeworthy. You seem to mistake indulgence with cheap and readily available.

Have you any idea how many communities procure substandard water quality to their residents? Quality so bad they are required to disclose to the public, albeit in obfuscated media and methods.
And guess which neighborhoods the worst water is supplied to - not the wealthiest!

If I had the authority, my opinion would include prohibition of anything with High Fructose Corn Syrup or Sucralose. Other possibilities include Industrial byproduct Vanillin, carcinogen Saccharine, and paralytic Aspartame.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 29, 2018 7:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I don't think I said there was no need.
$10-12k per year. That would be about $5-6 per hour for 40 hours per week, with no overtime or tips. Or about $10-12 per hour for 20 hours per week.
Of those who are the breadwinners in a family, how many in America do you think have income of $10-12k per year?
I wouldn't know. There's a lot of adults working jobs that children used to work these days. Many of them pay national minimum wage or very close to it. Most of them aren't full time and provide zero benefits. I've worked enough shitty jobs to know this.

I think maybe you need to slum it for a while and walk a mile in another man's shoes before you speak about things.

Either that, or start bitching about where your tax dollars are going other than to provide food for people who need it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
I said breadwinners. Such as Head of Families.
What is a breadwinner these days? That term doesn't hold any meaning if you've got two parents working part time, near minimum wage jobs, or a single parent trying to balance 2 or 3 of them.
Quote:
If a person has no income and chooses to pile on expenses like housing and cable, how is that your fault or mine?
I agree about the cable, and also high priced cell plans, and a lot of other bad financial choices. But what about housing? What do you mean by that? Should people working these jobs and their children be homeless? Apartment rent isn't cheap either, and in many cases even in 2018 a monthly mortgage is less than rent.

I'll let you throw out an average justifiable monthly cost of housing. Multiply that by 12 and subtract it from these part time wages for a year, and then imagine how far the rest of that money goes.
Quote:
Do you really feel more than 3 Million American Citizens fall into that boat?
That would be less than 1%. If you include children, which you should because we're talking about how many people can or can't afford to eat without subsidies, then yes I absolutely do.
Quote:
You must have not read any of my posts here since 2007. For Tea Party Patriots like myself, few topics are bitched about more than wasteful Government Spending, Federal Debt, Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and I am certain I have posted about it here.
I don't label myself Tea Party or anything else, but I'd probably agree with you on 90% or more of other topics surrounding wasteful spending. Food, for many reasons, just isn't one of them.

I'm not going to deny that there are cases where this system is abused. Unfortunately, once in the program a lot of the stuff is automated without a ton of oversight. It's kind of a necessity that it is though because it's expensive to do intense moderating of these programs and at some point you'd be spending more on the oversight than you would on providing the benefits themselves.

As I originally stated, at the very least it takes away any need for anyone to be burglarizing houses or pulling a weapon on you out in the street for your wallet because they (or thier kids) haven't eaten in 3 days.

Even at 65 billion dollars a year, that doesn't seem like that high a price to pay when you compare it to other massive wastes of taxpayer dollars out there that in no way benefit anybody.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Breadwinner supplies funds for the family unit. Stay at home mom or dad is not breadwinner.

Many refuse to accept living with their parents or other family, instead insisting upon paying for housing which they know for certain they cannot afford.

The Food Stamp program estimates the validly needy population at 1%, so you are in disagreement with the Food Stamp authority. You are steadfastly refusing to identify any level of Participation that is reasonable. Food Stamp program says 1% is legitimate, and actual Participation is over 14%, and you keep claiming that there is no waste, Fraud, or abuse in the span between 1% and 14% of the Food Stamp program. I point out that at least half, if not 80% of that expenditure is waste, Fraud, or abuse.

Having a weapon in lieu of feeding your kids, and using it to commit crimes, means your kids need to be removed from your disfunctional family unit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 29, 2018 10:52 PM

Adding to this Table of Data, which includes Not Fully Employed Rate.

I will refer to this set of data as Table JSF-URF-3

I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow.

The BLS uses both Seasonally Adjusted figures and Unadjusted figures, and interchanges them without clearly identifying so. I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.

Some numbers may have a 0 placed as first digit, to maintain column form in this format.

The 1st column of numbers is the Unemployed.
The 2nd column is what is called Marginally Attached to the Labor Force, which is included in the Want A Job Now category but NOT included in the Labor Force category and therefore excluded from the reported Unemployment category.
The 3rd column is the Involuntary Part-Time workers, who are Not Employed Full Time due to poor Economy, and want, are able to work FT. The 4th column of numbers is the sum of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd columns. 5th column is the Rate for column 4 figure, divided by Labor Force.
The 6th column of numbers is the Subtotal of columns 1 and 3, Unemployed plus Involuntary Part-Time.
The 7th column is Labor Force minus column 6. This is also Employed minus column 3 Involuntary Part-Time. This is not a figure identified by BLS, so I will call it Actually Fully Employed. This is Employed Full-time plus Voluntary Part-Time.
Not listed, but Civilian noninstitutional Population minus Actually Fully Employed is also a figure avoided by BLS, and I will call it Not Fully Employed, which is Unemployed plus Involuntary Part-Time plus Marginally Attached plus Not In Labor Force. The 8th column is Not Fully Employed Rate, which is divided by Civilian noninstitutional Population.
The 9th column is the Civilian Population. 10th column is Labor Force, 11th column is Participation Rate. 12th column is the published U-6 figure.

Figures in thousands.

Mo/Yr Unem MrgAt InvPT Total Prcnt SubTtl AcEmpl NtEm CivPop LbrForc Prtc% U6%
Jan94 09492 2120 4963 16575 12.8% 14455 114938 41.3% 195953 129393 66.0
Jan95 08101 1783 4620 14504 11.1% 12721 117923 40.4% 197753 130698 66.1
Jan96 08270 1737 4103 14110 10.7% 12373 119023 40.4% 199634 131396 65.8 10.8
Jan97 07933 1615 4338 13886 10.3% 12271 122046 39.7% 202285 134317 66.4 10.4
Jan98 07069 1479 4090 12638 09.3% 11159 124798 38.9% 204238 135951 66.6 09.3
Jan99 06604 1358 3645 11607 08.4% 10249 127694 38.2% 206719 137943 66.7 08.5
Jan00 06316 1197 3355 10868 07.8% 09671 129950 37.8% 208782 139621 66.9 07.8
Jan01 06647 1290 3559 11496 08.2% 10206 130843 38.0% 210889 141049 66.9 08.1
Jan02 08935 1509 4249 14693 10.4% 13184 127890 40.0% 213089 141074 66.2 10.5

Jan02 09051 1532 4453 15036 10.5% 13504 129724 40.1% 216506 143228 66.2 10.5
Jan03 09395 1598 5003 15996 11.0% 14398 130903 40.5% 219897 145301 66.1 11.0
Jan04 09144 1670 5152 15966 10.9% 14296 131772 40.7% 222161 146068 65.7 10.9
Jan05 08444 1804 4793 15041 10.2% 13237 133888 40.5% 224837 147125 65.4 10.2
Jan06 07608 1644 4513 13765 09.2% 12122 136978 39.8% 227553 149090 65.5 09.2
Jan07 07649 1577 4620 13846 09.1% 12269 139655 39.5% 230650 151924 65.9 09.1
Jan08 08221 1729 5235 15185 09.9% 13456 139372 40.1% 232616 152828 65.7 09.9
Jan09 13009 2130 8675 23814 15.5% 21684 131761 43.9% 234739 153445 65.4 15.4
Jan10 16147 2539 9161 27847 18.2% 25308 127649 46.1% 236832 152957 64.6 18.0
Jan11 14937 2800 9027 26764 17.5% 23964 128572 46.1% 238704 152536 63.9 17.3
Jan12 13541 2809 8747 25097 16.4% 22288 131197 45.8% 242269 153485 63.4 16.2
Jan13 13181 2443 8506 24130 15.6% 21687 133107 45.6% 244663 154794 63.3 15.4
Jan14 10855 2592 7617 21064 13.6% 18472 135909 45.0% 246915 154381 62.5 13.5
Jan15 09498 2234 7125 18857 12.1% 16623 139427 44.2% 249723 156050 62.5 12.0
Jan16 08309 2089 6234 16632 10.6% 14543 142804 43.4% 252397 157347 62.3 10.5
Jan17 08149 1752 6127 16028 10.1% 14276 144400 43.2% 254082 158676 62.5 10.1
Jan18 07189 1653 5380 14222 08.9% 12569 147468 42.6% 256780 160037 62.3 08.9

Feb18 07091 1602 5241 13934 08.6% 12332 149162 41.9% 256934 161494 62.9 08.6
Mar18 06671 1454 4975 13100 08.1% 11646 149902 41.7% 257097 161548 62.8 08.1

Jul 12 13400 2529 8218 24147 15.4% 21618 134908 44.1% 243354 156526 64.3
Aug12 12696 2561 7723 22980 14.8% 20419 134836 44.6% 243566 155255 63.7
Sep12 11742 2517 8003 22262 14.4% 19745 135330 44.5% 243772 155075 63.6
Oct12 11741 2433 7768 21942 14.1% 19509 136270 44.1% 243983 155779 63.8
Nov12 11404 2505 7898 21807 14.1% 19302 135651 44.4% 244174 154953 63.5

General color-coding guidelines:
This color mostly highlights the most favorable figure of it's column in the Table.
This color mostly highlights the most favorable figure of it's column since 9/11, or else since the Rock-The-Vote Democrat Recession.
This color highlights the worst figures in it's column in the Table, including loss of Labor Force count.

Quote:
Comparing to The Great Depression: the Unemployment peaked in 1933 at 24.75% with 12.830 Million unemployed. In 1932 there were 12.060 M unemployed, and 11.340M in 1934, 10.610 in 1935.
The 5 year stretch from 2009 to 2014 exceeded 12.9 Million each year, more Unemployed than the Great Depression. And 2014 was only less with the Fake figure, but including Marginally Attached was still more than Great Depression.

The Civilian Adult Population steadily Increases, suggesting that figure is not manipulated.
The Unemployment Rate was almost doubled by Jan 2010, and the Fake figure didn't return to 2008 level until Jan 2016. This figure after 2008 was able to be artificially less by shifting more unemployed into the Marginally Attached category, which Obamanomics managed to almost double. This Jan figure didn't return to 2008 level until 2017, after Trump was Elected. With 10 Million in 2008, this count did not fall back to sub-10 Million until 2017.
With Obamanomics pushing more into the Involuntary Part-Time group, this also got bloated to disguise the horrible Unemployment problems, and this Rate did not return to 2008 level until 2018.

The Jan Rate of all 3 categories combined of Obamanomics Unemployment did not fall back to 2008 level until 2018.

The Labor Force Participation Rate steadily dropped each year until finally reversing in 2017, Trump's first year.

Some have mentioned concern regard a tight Labor Market, too many vacant jobs without enough bodies to fill them.
But we should remember to consider the Labor Participation Rate. At the turn of the century it was around 67%, and in the later Bush43 period it was 66%.
Just because Obamanomics was able to drive it down to the 62% range does not mean that is the new norm. That 5% loss of Participation Rate amounts to about 13 Million potential employees.
Sure, they may not need to live in their mom's basement anymore if they become employed, but life can just be rough.

In the previous Tables of data, we can see that as far as common Indicators are concerned, all figures, totals, and Subtotals are at or near all-time lows (since the creation of U-6 in 1994) under Trump. But the categories are still manipulated, and potentially misrepresented.
So to help understand how much of the population is actually not allowed to be Employed Full-time when they want to, I have included in the above Table the 8th column of numbers, the Not Fully Employed Rate, which is a percentage of the Civilian noninstitutional Population. Because of the much larger denominator this figure will not have such drastic swings as other figures reported. This can help demonstrate how many are still able to fill a "tight Labor Market" which some are worried about. It can also provide an unvarnished picture of how many are not working, and compare to other periods since U-6 was created.

Even with this new figure, it is the lowest since the Rock-The-Vote Democrat Recession, which began October 2007 at the start of FY2008.

So, for those like 6ix, is there further valid dispute that the numbers are improved under Trump? It seems the only other objection would be claims of wholesale number fabrication.

This post has been under construction for over a week, while I attempted to resolve issues of display and presentation. Thanks for your patience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 29, 2018 11:23 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 2, 2018 12:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
1. Explain the Fake News Story that the Stock Market Crashed in March 2000.
Not fake news.

The Dotcom Crash - March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002

The Nasdaq Composite lost 78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11.

https://www.investopedia.com/features/crashes/crashes8.asp

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Holy Cow, you must be a genius!!!
A specialized subpart of a corner of The Stock Market has a decline over 30 months so IT MUST BE A CRASH!!!

From Jan 2000 at 11,700 Dow until May 2001 with a couple hundred less Dow, that is just crystal clarity in focusing your laser sharp identification of massive drops in STOCK MARKET VALUE. Dropping a whole couple percent in only a span of 16 months, that is such a total CRASH, totally fer sure.
By this standard of measurement, the huge CRASH from July 1997 to October 2002 resulted in the drop from 8,038 down to a whopping 7,286 in only a period of 63 months, a loss of almost 10%, or almost 1% per 9 months.

I'm really disappointed you believe such pablum.

A decrease from May 2001 to October 2002 of 4,100 DOW? That's a drop of 36% in 17 months, or over 2% per month average of the Broader Market, so probably doesn't suit your definition of a Crash.

In MArch 2000 it looks like Dow was under 10,000. So then it gained about 1,600 by May 2001. With a gain of about 16% from the onset of your defined CRASH, that much gain indicates such a horrible crash, everybody must have known about it!! But the News of the time did not report this 16% growth as a crash.

I have wondered why anybody would believe any of this.
Perhaps a perspective refresher can help casual readers focus.

NASDAQ was a fledgling index 16 years ago, and largely inconsequential.
It started in 1971 under ticker symbol NASD. Remember how impressive Google was back then? Apple? Netflix? Amazon? Napster? Microsoft? Yahoo? BetaMax, VHS, or CDs (Phillips)? Juno? AOL? Norton? PKZip? Atari, Nintendo? Dell? This was at least 15 years before algore invented the Internet.

During 2000 and 2001 the newly hatched NDAQ had a series of selloffs, divesting NASD from NDAQ. While being propped up by these collapsible stilts of new unstable fickle tech stocks, some people imagine that such a major transfer of core funds of this volatile index as being indicative of some persistent loss of value and crash.
Anybody want to guess where Amazon was in 2000? Which color iFruit were tech-savvy buyers choosing? Netflix? Facebook? Tweeter? SnapChamp? Instagrinder? Wikipedia?

Some people have so little understanding that they think Microsoft is a tech company instead of a social engineering outfit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 3, 2018 6:03 AM

Adding to this Table of Data, where I included the Margin of Gain for Labor Force, and Margin of Gain for Actually Fully Employed:

I will refer to this set of data as Table JSF-URF-4

I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow.

The BLS uses both Seasonally Adjusted figures and Unadjusted figures, and interchanges them without clearly identifying so. I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.

Some numbers may have a 0 placed as first digit, to maintain column form in this format.

The 1st column of numbers is the unemployed.
The 2nd column is what is called Marginally Attached to the Labor Force, which is included in the Want A Job Now category but NOT included in the Labor Force category and therefore excluded from the reported Unemployment category.
The 3rd column is the Involuntary Part-Time workers, who are Not Employed Full Time due to poor Economy, and want, are able to work FT.
The 4th column is the sum of the first 3 columns. 5th column is the Rate for column 4 figure, with Labor Force as the denominator.
The 6th column of numbers is the Subtotal of columns 1 and 3, Unemployed plus Involuntary Part-Time.
The 7th column is Labor Force minus column 6. This is also Employed minus column 3 Involuntary Part-Time. This is not a figure identified by BLS, so I will call it Actually Fully Employed. This is Employed Full-time plus Voluntary Part-Time.
Not listed, but Civilian noninstitutional Population minus Actually Fully Employed is also a figure avoided by BLS, and I will call it Not Fully Employed, which is Unemployed plus Involuntary Part-Time plus Marginally Attached plus Not In Labor Force. The 8th column is Not Fully Employed Rate, which is divided by Civilian noninstitutional Population.
The 9th column is the Civilian Population. 10th column is Labor Force, 11th column is Participation Rate.
The 12th column is Marginal Labor Force Rate. This is the gain of the Labor Force divided by the gain of the Civilian noninstitutional Population.
The 13th column is the Marginal Actual Fully Employed Rate. This is the gain in the Actual Fully Employed divided by the gain of the Civilian noninstitutional Population.

Figures in thousands.

MoYr Unem MrgAt InvPT Total Prct SubTtl AcEmpl NtEm CivPop LbrForc Prtc% MgLF MgAE
Ja94 09492 2120 4963 16575 12.8 14455 114938 41.3% 195953 129393 66.0
Ja95 08101 1783 4620 14504 11.1 12721 117923 40.4% 197753 130698 66.1 +072.5 +165.8
Ja96 08270 1737 4103 14110 10.7 12373 119023 40.4% 199634 131396 65.8 +037.1 +058.5
Ja97 07933 1615 4338 13886 10.3 12271 122046 39.7% 202285 134317 66.4 +110.2 +114.1
Ja98 07069 1479 4090 12638 09.3 11159 124798 38.9% 204238 135951 66.6 +083.7 +140.9
Ja99 06604 1358 3645 11607 08.4 10249 127694 38.2% 206719 137943 66.7 +080.3 +116.7
Ja00 06316 1197 3355 10868 07.8 09671 129950 37.8% 208782 139621 66.9 +081.3 +109.4
Ja01 06647 1290 3559 11496 08.2 10206 130843 38.0% 210889 141049 66.9 +067.8 +042.4
Ja02 08935 1509 4249 14693 10.4 13184 127890 40.0% 213089 141074 66.2 +001.1 --134.2

Ja02 09051 1532 4453 15036 10.5 13504 129724 40.1% 216506 143228 66.2 +038.8 --019.9
Ja03 09395 1598 5003 15996 11.0 14398 130903 40.5% 219897 145301 66.1 +061.1 +034.8
Ja04 09144 1670 5152 15966 10.9 14296 131772 40.7% 222161 146068 65.7 +033.9 +038.4
Ja05 08444 1804 4793 15041 10.2 13237 133888 40.5% 224837 147125 65.4 +039.5 +079.1
Ja06 07608 1644 4513 13765 09.2 12122 136978 39.8% 227553 149090 65.5 +072.3 +113.8
Ja07 07649 1577 4620 13846 09.1 12269 139655 39.5% 230650 151924 65.9 +091.5 +086.4
Ja08 08221 1729 5235 15185 09.9 13456 139372 40.1% 232616 152828 65.7 +046.0 --014.4
Ja09 13009 2130 8675 23814 15.5 21684 131761 43.9% 234739 153445 65.4 +029.1 --358.5
Ja10 16147 2539 9161 27847 18.2 25308 127649 46.1% 236832 152957 64.6 --023.3 --196.5
Ja11 14937 2800 9027 26764 17.5 23964 128572 46.1% 238704 152536 63.9 --022.5 +049.3
Ja12 13541 2809 8747 25097 16.4 22288 131197 45.8% 242269 153485 63.4 +026.6 +073.6
Ja13 13181 2443 8506 24130 15.6 21687 133107 45.6% 244663 154794 63.3 +054.7 +079.8
Ja14 10855 2592 7617 21064 13.6 18472 135909 45.0% 246915 154381 62.5 --018.3 +124.4
Ja15 09498 2234 7125 18857 12.1 16623 139427 44.2% 249723 156050 62.5 +059.4 +125.3
Ja16 08309 2089 6234 16632 10.6 14543 142804 43.4% 252397 157347 62.3 +055.8 +145.6
Ja17 08149 1752 6127 16028 10.1 14276 144400 43.2% 254082 158676 62.5 +078.9 +094.7
Ja18 07189 1653 5380 14222 08.9 12569 147468 42.6% 256780 160037 62.3 +050.4 +113.7

Fb18 07091 1602 5241 13934 08.6 12332 149162 41.9% 256934 161494 62.9 +946.1 1100.0
Mr18 06671 1454 4975 13100 08.1 11646 149902 41.7% 257097 161548 62.8 +033.1 +454.0

Jl 12 13400 2529 8218 24147 15.4 21618 134908 44.1% 243354 156526 64.3
Ag12 12696 2561 7723 22980 14.8 20419 134836 44.6% 243566 155255 63.7 --598.6 --034.0
Se12 11742 2517 8003 22262 14.4 19745 135330 44.5% 243772 155075 63.6 --087.4 +239.8
Oc12 11741 2433 7768 21942 14.1 19509 136270 44.1% 243983 155779 63.8 +333.6 +445.5
No12 11404 2505 7898 21807 14.1 19302 135651 44.4% 244174 154953 63.5 --432.5 --324.1

General color-coding guidelines:
This color mostly highlights the most favorable figure of it's column in the Table.
This color mostly highlights the most favorable figure of it's column since 9/11, or else since the Rock-The-Vote Democrat Recession.
This color highlights the worst figures in it's column in the Table, including loss of Labor Force count.

Quote:
Comparing to The Great Depression: the Unemployment peaked in 1933 at 24.75% with 12.830 Million unemployed. In 1932 there were 12.060 M unemployed, and 11.340M in 1934, 10.610 in 1935.
The 5 year stretch from 2009 to 2014 exceeded 12.9 Million each year, more Unemployed than the Great Depression. And 2014 was only less with the Fake figure, but including Marginally Attached was still more than Great Depression.

The Civilian Adult Population steadily Increases, suggesting that figure is not manipulated.
The Unemployment Rate was almost doubled by Jan 2010, and the Fake figure didn't return to 2008 level until Jan 2016. This figure after 2008 was able to be artificially less by shifting more unemployed into the Marginally Attached category, which Obamanomics managed to almost double. This Jan figure didn't return to 2008 level until 2017, after Trump was Elected. With 10 Million in 2008, this count did not fall back to sub-10 Million until 2017.
With Obamanomics pushing more into the Involuntary Part-Time group, this also got bloated to disguise the horrible Unemployment problems, and this Rate did not return to 2008 level until 2018.

The Jan Rate of all 3 categories combined of Obamanomics Unemployment did not fall back to 2008 level until 2018.

The Labor Force Participation Rate steadily dropped each year until finally reversing in 2017, Trump's first year.

Some have mentioned concern regard a tight Labor Market, too many vacant jobs without enough bodies to fill them.
But we should remember to consider the Labor Participation Rate. At the turn of the century it was around 67%, and in the later Bush43 period it was 66%.
Just because Obamanomics was able to drive it down to the 62% range does not mean that is the new norm. That 5% loss of Participation Rate amounts to about 13 Million potential employees.
Sure, they may not need to live in their mom's basement anymore if they become employed, but life can just be rough.

To put these last 2 columns in perspective, the reported Labor Force Participation Rate ranges from 62% to 67%. So if the rate were to remain consistent in growth, the Marginal Rate would also be in that range, for both the Labor Force growth and the Actually Fully Employed growth.
A Marginal Rate higher than this range results in an increase of the basis Rate.
Both of the Jan 2002 entries compare to Jan 2001.

This post has been under construction for several days, editing for display and presentation. Thanks for your patience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 3, 2018 8:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The data in my Tables regarding Unemployment Rates are compiled from the BLS Reports.

Here is a link to the Reports, you may dig for and confirm/verify any data you choose:

https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/home.htm
I can see now why you were reluctant to go the extra mile. I had no idea that you were compiling data from that site.

Why do I get the feeling that this stuff is intentionally obfuscated?

There is nothing at all intuitive about that website. I applaud your efforts to try to put the data together. We'll have to figure out a way to make it intelligible outside of this forum.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Well, now that I've compiled the data from disparate source locations, it should be relatively easy to transfer to your preferred format template. Select the "reply with quote" function, select and move the text to a word processing document to work with it, delete the font commands that I added in, then most format templates will allow a merge of columns and rows into the format.

You could even command Courier New font, reduce Font Size to your liking (or use Landscape Orientation), and convert to PDF.

I've tried several different edits. No 2 versions display the same on any 2 different computers. There is a way, but it is far too inelegant for me to work on at this point, maybe sometime later. Most of the number columns are able to line up, but the headers are impossible to predict. I think I've reduced a lot of wordwrapping.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS

Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Tue, April 16, 2024 02:04 - 504 posts

Dow Nearing 30K. Time For You To Jump Off?
Mon, April 15, 2024 21:24 - 106 posts

Elections; 2024
Mon, April 15, 2024 21:19 - 2245 posts

I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, April 15, 2024 18:39 - 738 posts

Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Mon, April 15, 2024 17:54 - 366 posts

In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, April 15, 2024 17:23 - 3519 posts

The Thread of Court Cases Trump Is Winning
Mon, April 15, 2024 15:32 - 18 posts

Have you guys been paying attention to the squatter situation in NYC? It's just escelated.
Mon, April 15, 2024 15:24 - 5 posts

As Palestinians pushes for statehood, Israel finds itself more isolated
Mon, April 15, 2024 13:44 - 284 posts

Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, April 15, 2024 11:45 - 6234 posts

I agree with everything you said, but don't tell anyone I said that
Mon, April 15, 2024 11:37 - 12 posts

"Feminism" really means more Femtacular than you at EVERYTHING.
Sun, April 14, 2024 18:05 - 64 posts

VIEW MORE TOPICS

FFF.NET SOCIAL