Re: Reid kills unemployment extension...

[No Beaner Amnesty]

In article <d5c3982b-32e0-427c-9420-
090ee0...@googlegroups.com>
bne...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Saturday, January 11, 2014 2:27:01 PM UTC-5, Fred Oinka wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 11, 2014 2:09:50 PM UTC-5, cicero venatio wrote:
> >
> > > In typical Harry Reid fashion it was either to be all his
> >
> > >
> >
> > > way or no way. So the 4 million people can thank Harry Reid
> >
> > >
> >
> > > for killing any chance for an extension. Those poor
> >
> > >
> >
> > > unemployed saps now will have to find a job or rob a bank,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > thanks to Harry Reid.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The news article I read said the debate eventually
> >
> > >
> >
> > > degenerated into bickering. I haven't heard Reid once, that
> >
> > >
> >
> > > he wasn't bickering, it's his way.
> >
> >
> >
> > Democrats: The party of no hope.
>
> Yes, but the latest employment report showed the unemployment rate to have dropped to 6.7%. And surely the recent stock market gains have enabled another 340,000 to leave the work force altogether. So with the Obama economy doing soooo well, why shouldn't Hapless Harry drop the unemployment benefits extension?


The stock market gains were rewards for eliminating jobs and
laying off employees.

See Macy's.

While it reported solid holiday sales on Wednesday, Macy�s also
announced several cost-cutting measures, including plans to lay
off 2,500 employees.

�Our company has significantly increased sales and profitability
over the past four years,� Terry J. Lundgren, Macy�s chief
executive, said in a statement. �We have identified some
specific areas where we can improve our efficiency without
compromising our effectiveness in serving the evolving needs of
our customers.�

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/business/macys-plans-layoffs-
and-closings-though-its-holiday-sales-were-up.html?_r=0

For all those who shopped Macy's at Christmas, remember the long
lines and no clerks at the registers?

[Chase Rizzo]

On 11 Jan 2014, wien9al...@gmail.com posted some
news:8ba8c1ed-c6cb-4149...@googlegroups.com:

> ..... Please refer me to a study that proves that the ups and owns of
> the stock market are related to the unemployment situation.

If you're that stupid, a study won't help.

[F. George McDuffee]

================

While a regression analysis is not hard to generate, showing
the correlation (or lack of correlation) between the
unemployment and the monthly DJ or NASDQ index, part of the
problem is that correlation is not causality, and a some
what more serious / subtle problem is that the definition /
composition of both the unemployment rate and the stock
market indices have repeatedly changed over time.

Never-the-less it is highly irritating to us in the fly-over
states to see the stock market, and the individual stock
prices, go up, and the CEOs picture on the cover of INC,
when massive domestic job reductions and plant closings are
announced.

If there is any serious interest I will gen up an analysis
and post it on my web site. Most likely I will use the
16-65 employment rate to capture the discouraged workers
[out of work for more than 1 year and therefore considered
to not be actively looking for work], which are currently
excluded from the unemployment rate calculations. This
still won't capture our fellow citizens who are
underemployed [no benefits/career path] or are working at
[multiple] part-time jobs.


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

[NoBody]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:57:14 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 05:40:54 +0000 (UTC), Chase Rizzo <cri...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>

>It's very easy when the righwingers like FILEDUD cannot make a single
>post based on a true statement (about anything) or predicate the claim
>on a glaring fallacy statement.
>
>
>

This from a guy who claims that everything he posts is in the "public
record" yet he can't seem to find it anywhere.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/13/2014 8:42 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 06:40:38 -0500, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> This from a guy who claims that everything he posts is in the "public
>> record" yet he can't seem to find it anywhere.
>

> No--YOU can't find it---because

No, *YOU* can't find it, Yaeowherghoofuz, because it's not there *AND*
because you're a dumb cunt.

I already disproved the bullshit claim, that large stock market
fluctuations cause or are caused by changes in the unemployment rate.

"public record" = shit Yaeowherghoofuz believes without a shred of evidence.

[Rudy Canoza]

You stupid fuckwit. Tell me how the unemployment rate changed with
respect to the stock market crash of October 1987.

You don't know your ass from your face; don't know your toes from your
teeth. Shut the fuck up now.

[F. George McDuffee]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:57:14 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net
wrote:

<snip>

>>> ..... Please refer me to a study that proves that the ups and owns of
>>> the stock market are related to the unemployment situation.

<snip>

We seem to be headed into another p*****g contest.

In the interests of a data driven discussion, I have pulled
together workforce participation rates from the BLS going
back to Feb 1948 when the data series started, and monthly
DJIA data for the same period. Workforce participation
rates in percent was used because this captures the
"discouraged" workers dropped from the unemployment rates.
The DJIA was converted to change in percent from previous
month to control for "inflation" and to compare percent to
percent.

The scatter plot is unusual in that it presents an "oreo"
data picture of two separate strata of work force
participation levels for no apparent reason, which indicates
something else is going on.

In any event a regression analysis was run with the data,
and the R^2 value, ***is zero to three decimal places***,
i.e. no correlation between the DJIA current months change
from the previous month in percent and the workforce
participation rate in percent.

This is not to say there could not be a *slight* correlation
if the DJIA was shifted by 1 or more months (or a three/six
month % change used) reflecting a leading effect but, given
the scatter plot, this will be very low and not
statistically significant. This means that the unnuanced
and unqualified claim that low workforce participation [high
unemployment] rates and increases in the DJIA are somehow
linked is not correct.

To see the scatter plot in pdf format [Adobe reader or
equivalent required] click on
http://mcduffee-associates.us/DROP%20BOX/djer.pdf

To download the data set in Open Office .ods format and run
your own analysis click on
http://mcduffee-associates.us/DROP%20BOX/civlpr.ods

Enjoy, and let us try to generate more light and less
heat/smoke in these discussions of critical issues,
remembering that opinions are like belly buttons -- everyone
has one and these are generally full of "lint."

[Gunner Asch]

George...you may wish to read this article..and back check the data
just to satisfy yourself that the conclusions laid..are accurate

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/heres-the-real-unemployment-rate/


__
"Anyone who thinks Obama is doing a good job
is either stupid or a perpetual societal leech"

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[NoBody]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:42:58 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 06:40:38 -0500, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

>>This from a guy who claims that everything he posts is in the "public
>>record" yet he can't seem to find it anywhere.
>

>No--YOU can't find it---because you know it's fact

Yorgort "logic" at his finest: "It doesn't exist therefore it is fact"
IDIOT.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:56:04 -0800, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

But Yorgort claims the public record says this isn't so? He wouldn't
be lying would he?

[F. George McDuffee]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 06:42:08 -0500, NoBody
<NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:56:04 -0800, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:20:18 -0600, F. George McDuffee
>><gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>>

<snip>

>>>Enjoy, and let us try to generate more light and less
>>>heat/smoke in these discussions of critical issues,
>>>remembering that opinions are like belly buttons -- everyone
>>>has one and these are generally full of "lint."
>>
>>George...you may wish to read this article..and back check the data
>>just to satisfy yourself that the conclusions laid..are accurate
>>
>>http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/heres-the-real-unemployment-rate/
>>
>
>But Yorgort claims the public record says this isn't so? He wouldn't
>be lying would he?

==========================

Two separate observations:

First it appears Yorgort is more correct than incorrect when
he reports a much higher unemployment rate. As to the exact
levels, it is an open question. One of the big problems is
the self-reported and subjective nature of much of the data,
i.e. how can you tell if a person really wants a job or is
just saying they do, however the labor participation rate
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
for those >16 does appear to give a more accurate and
objective measure of "employment" from the perspective of
the typical citizen than the other measures. FWIW -- while
serious, UN-employment does not seem to be *THE* problem,
but rather mis- or under- employment. With a nod to Gertrude
Stein, "a job is a job is a job" is *NOT* correct, and every
hour a college graduate, journeyman plumber/machinist/etc,
or trained technician spends flipping burgers, is an hour of
high-value added activity lost >>>which will never be
regained.<<<

Secondly, although the outcome is virtually identical,
government is not about lying or cheating its citizens.
"Government" is not a monolithic organization, but rather a
huge loose conglomeration of independent fiefdoms, which are
highly bureaucratic and hierarchal, frequently work at cross
purposes, and are only nominally under the control of the
elected officials or their appointees [Webeism, as in we be
here before you here, and we be here after you gone...]. In
any organization of this type, from General Motors to the
Papacy, one proven avenue of advancement has been to always
tell your boss what they want to hear, and never ever be the
bearer of bad news or data contradictory to their world view
or meta narrative. [And we all know how well that turned
out...]
http://www.economist.com/node/13782942
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

Thus the governmental problem is not so much one of
dishonesty, but of ODing on rose colored glasses, and a
resulting isolation from the majority of citizens and their
world.

As I have posted in the past, we are entering a new
socioeconomic epoch, of globalization, supranational
corporatism, surging automation and exploding advances in AI
[artificial intelligence] (and we ain't seen nothing yet) so
"government," which by definition is dedicated to preserving
the status quo, is increasingly redundant and irrelevant,
and indeed is increasingly counter productive for the
majority. Again FWIW -- the existing political parties, be
they left, right, up, down, front or back, have totally lost
the plot, and are ideologically bankrupt, intellectually
bankrupt, and ethically bankrupt but unfortunately not yet
financially bankrupt.

For theme music click here -- feel free to sing along
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3un5f6qLi_k

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/14/2014 10:51 AM, F. George McDumpster, "the boghopper of Borger",
bullshitted:

> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 06:42:08 -0500, NoBody
> <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:56:04 -0800, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:20:18 -0600, F. George McDuffee
>>> <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>>>
> <snip>
>>>> Enjoy, and let us try to generate more light and less
>>>> heat/smoke in these discussions of critical issues,
>>>> remembering that opinions are like belly buttons -- everyone
>>>> has one and these are generally full of "lint."
>>>
>>> George...you may wish to read this article..and back check the data
>>> just to satisfy yourself that the conclusions laid..are accurate
>>>
>>> http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/heres-the-real-unemployment-rate/
>>>
>>
>> But Yorgort claims the public record says this isn't so? He wouldn't
>> be lying would he?
> ==========================
>
> Two separate observations:
>
> First it appears Yorgort is more correct than incorrect when
> he reports a much higher unemployment rate.

Ha ha ha ha ha! You doddering fuckwit - there are no degrees of
correctness. Either he's correct, or he's incorrect.

> As to the exact
> levels, it is an open question. One of the big problems is
> the self-reported and subjective nature of much of the data,
> i.e. how can you tell if a person really wants a job or is
> just saying they do, however the labor participation rate
> http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
> for those >16 does appear to give a more accurate and
> objective measure of "employment" from the perspective of
> the typical citizen than the other measures. FWIW -- while
> serious, UN-employment does not seem to be *THE* problem,
> but rather mis- or under- employment. With a nod to Gertrude
> Stein, "a job is a job is a job" is *NOT* correct, and every
> hour a college graduate, journeyman plumber/machinist/etc,
> or trained technician spends flipping burgers, is an hour of
> high-value added activity lost >>>which will never be
> regained.<<<

Risible bullshit. If the person's "training" isn't in something the
market values, then it isn't high value added. People with advanced
degrees in "ethnic studies", for example, don't add any value at all.
Flipping burgers is a step *higher* in value than anything they might do
involving "ethnic studies."

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/13/2014 4:00 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:42:18 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>>
>> No, *YOU* can't find it, Yaeowherghoofuz, because it's not there *AND*
>> because you're a dumb cunt.
>
>

> Well, right away i can tell you'er about as educated as

My education is far deeper *and* broader than yours. You are an
admitted illiterate.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:51:05 -0600, F. George McDuffee

Actually Yorgot says the unemployement rate is down.

[F. George McDuffee]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 06:24:31 -0500, NoBody
<NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:

<snip>

>Actually Yorgot says the unemployement rate is down.

<snip>

When you look at the graph of all the data (Feb 1948 to
Present) at http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
the trend line is clear. The fraction of U.S. adults in the
labor force peaked about 2000 and has been in steady decline
since. As in all real data, there is the signal and there
is the white noise or static. It is a fundamental error to
confuse the two. One way around this is to use a 3 or 6
moving average.

As I indicated, it appears we are living through yet another
upheaval in the socioeconomic/geopolitical structure, for
example the PRC is now the world's largest exporter.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2014/01/12/is-china-really-the-worlds-no-1-trader/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/business/international/chinese-exports-withstand-rising-labor-costs.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=0

Advances in AI [artificial intelligence, e.g. data
mining/big data] will shortly make huge numbers of middle
managers and skilled clerks obsolete and redundant, to be
quickly followed by higher (nominally creative) management.
Advances in automation will increasingly displace manual
workers, e.g. obsolescence of long-haul truckers (and
possibly airline pilots) by autonomous vehicles, as it has
already displaced most manual machinists by CNC.

Where this is headed, other than chaos and anarchy, is
anyone's guess, but one thing is sure. ==> People that don't
have jobs cannot be significant consumers (particularly when
unemployment compensation is terminated or reduced), and the
U.S. is a consumer based economy. <==

We can no longer attempt to run the new economy on the basis
of old wives tales, lore, myths, legends, bumper stickers,
and scribblings of long dead economists from other eras.
Profound and significant societal change is occurring at an
increasing rate, and is inevitable, the only choice is
between actively changing and being changed...

1% of the people make things happen.
10% of the people watch things happen.
All the rest stand around and wonder what happened.