Good write up on the Unemployment report.
InsuranceBroker
Job growth could be an illusion
Did firms hire more workers, or just lay off fewer?
By Rex Nutting, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 5:53 PM ET Feb. 6, 2003 WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Don't get too
excited, but the mighty U.S. economy might have actually created jobs last
month.
Or maybe the "growth" in non-farm payrolls in January was really an illusion
created by the way the government bends the statistics.
Which would mean the labor market is still very sick.
The Labor Department will report on January's employment situation on Friday at
8:30 a.m. Economists expect that non-farm payrolls grew by about 65,000 in
January after firms cut 101,000 jobs in December.
In an economy that eliminated 181,000 jobs in 2002 and 1.4 million in 2001, any
growth at all would be welcome news.
On second look, however, "the data should make it fairly obvious that the labor
market continues to sag," said Joe Abate, economist at Lehman Brothers.
Making adjustments
The problem comes from the seasonal adjustments for retail hiring.
"It would be best to focus on the January jobs data excluding the retail
sector," said Tony Crescenzi, chief bond market strategist at Miller Tabak.
"The market response will likely be dictated by this measure rather than the
headline data."
When the government reports its monthly numbers, it adjusts them for seasonal
factors to allow economists and us interested amateurs to see underlying trends
more clearly. But sometimes the seasonal adjustments serve only to cloud the
issue.
For instance, retail hiring typically soars in November and December as retail
outlets get ready for the holiday rush. The seasonally adjusted government data
tries to smooth out that seasonal bump, so that normal seasonal hiring would
appear as zero job growth in the reported data.
But if the normal seasonal patterns are disrupted, the number becomes
distorted. That's what happened this year.
From early in the fall, retailers knew the holiday sales season would be weak
and so they adjusted their hiring accordingly.
Signs of a slow season were everywhere. Consumers were buying cars, not
clothing, books and jewelry. Income growth was slowing and debt levels were
getting too high. And consumers have been very bargain-conscious, so retailers
knew they couldn't make up the expected low volumes with higher prices.
In November, retailers actually hired 298,000 more workers, but the seasonal
adjustment expected about 338,000, so the seasonally adjusted figure showed a
loss of 40,000.
That 40,000 "loss" was a big reason why non-farm payrolls fell by 88,000 in
November.
The story was the same in December. Retailers actually hired 162,000 more
workers, but the seasonal adjustment turned that into a 104,000 decline,
accounting for all of December's non-farm payroll loss of 101,000.
The employment situation looked a lot worse in November and December than it
really was, but now it'll start to look a lot better, because the seasonal
factors will now expect all those seasonal workers who were never hired in
December to be laid off in January.
Of course, if they were never hired in the first place, they won't show up in
the data as layoffs. So while January's numbers may look on the bright side,
the labor market is really stuck in the doldrums.
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
Tim Keating
wrote:
Still doesn't account for the reported overall gain of +1.1 Million
jobs.. despite.. the only positive component (service sector) showing
a gain of 143K.
(I assume farm employment didn't account for the extra million).
no...@nowhere.invalid
news:20030207103621...@mb-mv.aol.com:
> Shameless copied from the IBM board. IBM 77.12 down 38 cents at 1037
>
> Job growth could be an illusion
> Did firms hire more workers, or just lay off fewer?
> By Rex Nutting, CBS.MarketWatch.com
> Last Update: 5:53 PM ET Feb. 6, 2003 WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Don't get
> too excited, but the mighty U.S. economy might have actually created
> jobs last month.
>
> Or maybe the "growth" in non-farm payrolls in January was really an
> illusion created by the way the government bends the statistics.
>
How bad the employment picture truly has to be given that the mainstream
media has started questioning government's statistics? It is quite
frightening!
Tim, since you have studied the employment data extensively, what do you
believe the true unemployment rate to be?
Thanks
alexy
>Tim, since you have studied the employment data extensively, what do you
>believe the true unemployment rate to be?
Sounds like none is issuing a "put your money where you mouth is"
challenge. This should be good! Add how you define "the true"
unemployment rate.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.
InsuranceBroker
>From: alexy al...@mindhelicalwire.com
>Date: 2/7/2003 7:41 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <mck84vcnijnvpih1a...@4ax.com>
>Sounds like none is issuing a "put your money where you mouth is"
>challenge. This should be good! Add how you define "the true"
>unemployment rate.
>
Well lets adopt the government or alex "definition of unemployment. Since
everyone with a heart beat is capable of selling pencils or apples on a corner,
the true government unemployment rate is zero . Also the government will allow
anyone to take a bullet to help rid a dictator so there cannot be any
unemployment in our country.
Tim Keating
Take at least 80% of the self employed. 7.3 Million workers.
If they're not filling 941's, then they're not making any money.
(equilivent to unemployed)..
Undo the recent changes to workforce particpation percentages.
(revert back to 2000 average) It's obvious they want to work.
Just no work to be had.. That adds back in two percent of overall
work population.. 4.5 Million workers..
Tack in 1/2 (4.5%.. 2.25%)Maginally Attached workers, plus total
empoyed part time for economic reasons..(some of these already covered
by above compensating factors) 3.3 Million workers..
Tack in 3 Million partially disabled, (out of 5 Million), able to
work, want work, but no longer desirable and NOT currently counted.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm
Start with nonseasally adjusted employment number..9,395K (6.5%)
workers, and non adjusted workforce number of 145,301K workers.
---
(dol UI#) (Se adj) (wf adj) (ma adj) (Pd adj)
9395K + 7,300K + 4,500K + 3,300K + 3,000K == 27,495 K un/under
employed..
(dol wf#) (wf adj) (Pd adj)
145,301K + 4,500K + 3,000K = 152,801 K workforce.
(new UI#) (new wf#)
27,495K/152,801K == 18.0% unemployment rate..
Closing in on Great Depression numbers.
Tim Keating
<NotForJ...@directinternet11.com1> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 00:14:22 GMT, no...@nowhere.invalid wrote:
>
>>insur...@aol.com (InsuranceBroker) wrote in
>>news:20030207103621...@mb-mv.aol.com:
>>
>>> Shameless copied from the IBM board. IBM 77.12 down 38 cents at 1037
>>>
>>> Job growth could be an illusion
>>> Did firms hire more workers, or just lay off fewer?
>>> By Rex Nutting, CBS.MarketWatch.com
>>> Last Update: 5:53 PM ET Feb. 6, 2003 WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Don't get
>>> too excited, but the mighty U.S. economy might have actually created
>>> jobs last month.
>>>
>>> Or maybe the "growth" in non-farm payrolls in January was really an
>>> illusion created by the way the government bends the statistics.
>>>
>>
>>How bad the employment picture truly has to be given that the mainstream
>>media has started questioning government's statistics? It is quite
>>frightening!
>>
>>Tim, since you have studied the employment data extensively, what do you
>>believe the true unemployment rate to be?
>
>Take at least 80% of the self employed. 7.3 Million workers.
> If they're not filling 941's, then they're not making any money.
^^^^^^
Minor correction .. that's form 1040-ES..
>(equilivent to unemployed)..
>
>Undo the recent changes to workforce particpation percentages.
> (revert back to 2000 average) It's obvious they want to work.
>Just no work to be had.. That adds back in two percent of overall
>work population.. 4.5 Million workers..
>
>Tack in 1/2 (4.5%.. 2.25%)Maginally Attached workers, plus total
>empoyed part time for economic reasons..(some of these already covered
>by above compensating factors) 3.3 Million workers..
>
>Tack in 3 Million partially disabled, (out of 5 Million), able to
>work, want work, but no longer desirable and NOT currently counted.
>
>http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm
>
>Start with nonseasally adjusted employment number..9,395K (6.5%)
>workers, and non adjusted workforce number of 145,301K workers.
>
>---
>
>(dol UI#) (Se adj) (wf adj) (ma adj) (Pd adj)
>9395K + 7,300K + 4,500K + 3,300K + 3,000K == 27,495 K un/under
>employed..
>
>(dol wf#) (wf adj) (Pd adj)
>145,301K + 4,500K + 3,000K = 152,801 K workforce.
>
>(new UI#) (new wf#)
>27,495K/152,801K == 18.0% unemployment rate..
+- a couple(2) of percent..
InsuranceBroker
>Date: 2/7/2003 11:24 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <09v84v8pgi3e0ooeu
> Closing in on Great Depression numbers.
I am not sure of that but I am sure that we are a lot close to the numbers than
Alex or the government would try to make us believe.
Have you noticed how much Alex is not interested anymore. It is amazing the
guy was in everyone face over the most stupid thing but now he is not
interested. Well once a troll always a troll.
Phil Ovvschitt
>In November, retailers actually hired 298,000 more workers, but the seasonal
>adjustment expected about 338,000, so the seasonally adjusted figure showed a
>loss of 40,000.
>
>That 40,000 "loss" was a big reason why non-farm payrolls fell by 88,000 in
>November.
>
>The story was the same in December. Retailers actually hired 162,000 more
>workers, but the seasonal adjustment turned that into a 104,000 decline,
>accounting for all of December's non-farm payroll loss of 101,000.
>
>The employment situation looked a lot worse in November and December than it
>really was
>
So according to that article, Keating was full of shit when during the
release of December and November numbers he said that seasonal
adjustment was being used to make the numbers look better than they
actually were. The fact was that seasonal adjustment was having exactly
the OPPOSITE effect from what Keating was telling you. Thanks for
pointing out Tim's bullshit. You have done a valuable public service.
Phil Ovvschitt
>Tim, since you have studied the employment data extensively, what do you
>believe the true unemployment rate to be?
>
>
Hilarious. Somebody asking Keating about economics. What a hoot.
Keating couldn't even get the direction of the seasonal adjustment
effects correct and you want to know what the true unemployment rate is
based on his analysis? I love it. You can't get this kind of
entertainment anywhere else.
Phil Ovvschitt
You left out a whole bunch of people. For example, there are millions
of housewives that stay at home and take care of their kids. Probably
around 40 million. They'd work if the government provided free care for
their kids during the work hours. Also, what about the millions of
children who want to work but aren't allowed to work because they are
not old enough? That's probably around 20 million. And what about
multiple personalities, where only one or two of the several
personalities has a job? That probably adds another ten million. What
about all the older workers displaced by new graduates and kids turning
16? How many millions of people become old enough to work every year,
thus taking jobs from older Americans? That's probably ten million. You
aren't counting all the millions of older Americans that move into
retirement because someone younger will be taking their job. You aren't
counting all the mental defectives who aren't working but would like to
work (I'm not talking about the "partially disabled" but the fully
disabled. Just because a guy has the mind of a four year old doesn't
mean he doesn't want to work). Thta's probably a million more.
Also, what about full-time workers that think they deserve better
jobs? Another 100 million. What about lazy asses that want to work, but
can't find any job that will let them stay at home and watch TV all day
long? Another million. Also, don't forget all the corpses in cemetaries
across the country. Those bodies could be put to work as balast for
ships, or feed for hogs. Another tens of millions.
The REAL unemployment rate is obviously around 120%. That means
nobody is employed, not even the govt workers that collect the
unemployment numbers.
Liz
"Tim Keating" <NotForJ...@directinternet11.com1> wrote in message
> Take at least 80% of the self employed. 7.3 Million workers.
> If they're not filling 941's, then they're not making any money.
> (equilivent to unemployed)..
they may be filing late, or not at all, because (a) they need all the money,
and/or (b) they antipcipate a much lower tax burden at year-end ... which of
course is another variant on "unemployment"
<snip>
> (dol wf#) (wf adj) (Pd adj)
> 145,301K + 4,500K + 3,000K = 152,801 K workforce.
>
> (new UI#) (new wf#)
> 27,495K/152,801K == 18.0% unemployment rate..
interesting; I hope you're off somewhere ... my VERY rough estimate (more
or less a smell test) was around 9-11% ... one thing I'm quite sure of:
it's NOT 5.7%
Tim Keating
>
>"Tim Keating" <NotForJ...@directinternet11.com1> wrote in message
>
>> Take at least 80% of the self employed. 7.3 Million workers.
>> If they're not filling 941's, then they're not making any money.
>> (equilivent to unemployed)..
>
>they may be filing late, or not at all, because (a) they need all the money,
>and/or (b) they antipcipate a much lower tax burden at year-end ... which of
SE tax is doesn't have deductibles.. Only things like earned income
tax credit can offset SE tax liabilities. Deductions, # dependents,
losses, mortgage interest payments, etc have no effect on SE tax
liabilities.
Once they exceed ~$500 in year end tax liabilities, they become
subject to stiff UNDERPAYMENT penalties.
>course is another variant on "unemployment"
You missed my previous calculation from another thread.
:A follow up.. Just based on SE taxables (no deductions possible).. (15.3%) and the Estimated taxes paid by SE and others.
:http://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/03013100.txt
Note: Used the number for a 4 month period that includes all estimated
tax payments for the LAST quarter of the tax year. (Last chance to
balance the books).. (The number is in line with traditional
collection patterns.. No hugh statistical variations.)
:397million(1st qtr) *4(qtrs/yr)*(1/.153)/9.213 Million SE workers == Average yearly self employed income == 1126$/Yr !!!
I'll add a minor correction.. only 92.35% of each dollar earned is
subject to 15.3% SE tax.
397million(1st qtr) *4(qtrs/yr)*(1/.9235)*(1/.153)/9.213 Million SE
workers == Average yearly self employed income == $1216/Yr !!!
I.E.$1216/yr is still less than 6 weeks at minimum wage..
So for all practical purposes..
9 Million SE workers are UNEMPLOYED!!!
>
><snip>
>
>> (dol wf#) (wf adj) (Pd adj)
>> 145,301K + 4,500K + 3,000K = 152,801 K workforce.
>>
>> (new UI#) (new wf#)
>> 27,495K/152,801K == 18.0% unemployment rate..
>
>interesting; I hope you're off somewhere ... my VERY rough estimate (more
Maybe.. then maybe not...
>or less a smell test) was around 9-11% ... one thing I'm quite sure of:
>it's NOT 5.7%
check out U6 for Jan 2003.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
InsuranceBroker
>Date: 2/8/2003 10:47 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <b2394h$nnj$1...@flood.xnet.com>
>
>
> So according to that article, Keating was full of shit when during the
>release of December and November numbers he said that seasonal
>adjustment was being used to make the numbers look better than they
>actually were
Not at all. The is the way the government designed it. They are totally and
completely only a method to hide the truth. The reason they state is to smooth
out the numbers. Why not produce the reprot with and without season
adjustments?
It is like the cost of living adjustments. They seasonally adjust the oil
price out when it is going up in the spring but leave it in when the driving
season is over.
>. The fact was that seasonal adjustment was having exactly
>the OPPOSITE effect from what Keating was telling you.
Actually it was not. The 80,000 that they put back in yesterday was what you
are trying to claim. The government corrected what you are talking about when
the old report was stale.
> Thanks for
>pointing out Tim's bullshit. You have done a valuable public service.
>
Sorry buddy but you have to dig a bit more on this one. Tim might not be
totally correct but he is actively gathering source of infomration so I will
accept him more than those that look for grammer. I was I was better with my
grammer. Most people who read my post instead of just killfile wish I was
also.
InsuranceBroker
>Message-id: <b239de$nnj$2...@flood.xnet.com>
Are you sure about that seasonal adjustment. I think you missed the point that
the government did not put the missing 80,000 into the figures for the month
before until yesterday. Not only were they seasonally adjusting the figures,
they were late reporint them. Now how could they be late on a telphone survey?
Yes, I am a full paid up member of the grassy knoll society. We grassy
knollers would love for you to explain how they needed 80,000 a month late?
InsuranceBroker
>Message-id: <b23apm$o7g$1...@flood.xnet.com>
> You left out a whole bunch of people. For example, there are millions
>of housewives that stay at home and take care of their kids.
Really, Alex was just pointing out recently how many are not. I believe many
of those stay at home moms are probably unemployed but we have not way of
finding out about unemployment because the government really does not check on
the situation. The government uses a 60 year old method of telephone surveys.
The country has grown over 30 percent since they stated the system.
> Probably
>around 40 million.
What do you base that number on. It is a number that one should be able to
determine easy enough. Woman who have children and on occupation listed on the
census. So why do you not find that information.
> They'd work if the government provided free care for
>their kids during the work hours.
REally so they are unemployed because of the bad economic policies of the
country or they are unemployed because there are not good paying jobs?
>Also, what about the millions of
>children who want to work but aren't allowed to work because they are
>not old enough?
Ok. The survey is only for age 16 and over. So how what is keeping them from
quiting school. How about the millions of tenages with several different part
time jobs?
>And what about
>multiple personalities, where only one or two of the several
>personalities has a job?
Ok. Would that not be taken care of in the telephone survey.
>What
>about all the older workers displaced by new graduates and kids turning
>16?
How about the worker replaced by the h1-b. Were do they count guess workers?
> The REAL unemployment rate is obviously around 120%.
Well it is clear from you powerful post that the government telephone survey is
bullshit. Now if we can only get the troll Alex to understand all the draw
backs that you have listed.
>That means
>nobody is employed, not even the govt workers that collect the
>unemployment numbers.
YOu could be correct. Do you think that they might not have telephones and
that is why the government is missing them?
InsuranceBroker
>Date: 2/8/2003 11:30 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <xga1a.674330$TJ.9...@post-02.news.easynews.com>
>interesting; I hope you're off somewhere ... my VERY rough estimate (more
>or less a smell test) was around 9-11% ... one thing I'm quite sure of:
>it's NOT 5.7%
The year I did not deposit any of the checks for Nov and Dec until the turn of
the year. That represented over 25,000 reported in a different year. I did
not have that problem in Nov and Dec since I had no billable hours.
alexy
>>Subject: Re: Good write up on the Unemployment report.
>>From: Phil Ovvschitt n...@nl.com
>>Date: 2/8/2003 11:15 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <b23apm$o7g$1...@flood.xnet.com>
>
>> You left out a whole bunch of people. For example, there are millions
>>of housewives that stay at home and take care of their kids.
>
>Really, Alex was just pointing out recently how many are not.
LIAR. I never said anything of the kind. Hallucinating again?
InsuranceBroker
>Date: 2/8/2003 3:04 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <4hoa4vg9oi3nv6a48...@4ax.com>
>>
>>Really, Alex was just pointing out recently how many are not.
>LIAR. I never said anything of the kind. Hallucinating again?
Sure you did. YOu made several comments on the increase woman in the
workforce. I get the feeling with you nasty posts that you are having
difficult getting the goats out of the livng area during the snow storms.
Spring is around the corner and you can sleep under the stars soon. Just like
your relatives do in the old country.
Thus Spake Zarathustra
<20030208131300...@mb-fk.aol.com>...
>> The REAL unemployment rate is obviously around 120%.
>
>Well it is clear from you powerful post that the government telephone survey is
>bullshit. Now if we can only get the troll Alex to understand all the draw
>backs that you have listed.
LOL. I was being sarcastic. None of the drawbacks I listed were legitimate.
I was mocking Keating's willingness to just arbitrarily define who should
count as unemployed. You were just too dumb to realize sarcasm when you saw
it. Hell, you were too dumb to even recognize it was me (as is
obvious from you praising the post as "powerful").
--
***Posted by Jake's Custom Newsgroup Reader***
alexy
>>Subject: Re: Good write up on the Unemployment report.
>>From: alexy al...@mindhelicalwire.com
>>Date: 2/8/2003 3:04 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <4hoa4vg9oi3nv6a48...@4ax.com>
>
>>>
>>>Really, Alex was just pointing out recently how many are not.
>>LIAR. I never said anything of the kind. Hallucinating again?
>
>Sure you did. YOu made several comments on the increase woman in the
>workforce.
Oh, okay. Yes I did say that. I just thought from the context you
clipped, a message from JJ to which you were replying, that said:
> You left out a whole bunch of people. For example, there are millions
>>>of housewives that stay at home and take care of their kids.
That you were claiming that I had made a post in contradiction to
this.
Of course, it is a fact that there are increasing numbers of women in
the workforce, but that in no way disagrees with the idea that there
are millions of housewives that stay at home to take care of kids.
In this one isolated case, I have to say that you were not lying, so
my apologies.
Thus Spake Zarathustra
<xga1a.674330$TJ.9...@post-02.news.easynews.com>...
>... my VERY rough estimate (more
>or less a smell test) was around 9-11% ... one thing I'm quite sure of:
>it's NOT 5.7%
InsuranceBroker
>Date: 2/8/2003 3:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <b23q6p$fa$1...@flood.xnet.com>
>
> LOL. I was being sarcastic. None of the drawbacks I listed were legitimate.
>
No. My god what a surprise. Maybe that is why you stated that no one at all
was employed. God, JJ, we can play you silly games. I noticed you took them
out. Not that it was so clearly crap.
>I was mocking Keating's willingness
Nay, you were just being your usually asshole. Hey we understand how it feels
that you could not make it in economists.
>You were just too dumb to realize sarcasm when you saw
>it.
REally, Maybe you should have left it in.
> Hell, you were too dumb to even recognize it was me
That is true. Sorry, there were so few of your usual insults. Hey when it
comes to playing games, you and alex are the best.
InsuranceBroker
>Message-id: <npqa4v8mbars59ur2...@4ax.com>
>>Sure you did. YOu made several comments on the increase woman in the
>>workforce.
>
>Oh, okay. Yes I did say that
Thank you asshole. I saw you evil twin JJ was playing the Alex game today.
Maybe you should understand what total asshole that makes you and JJ look when
you play sock puppets. What a totally immature and stupid way to try to make
it look like you are anything but a total and complete idiot. Now ALex, why
do you and jj like sockpuppets??????????//
> I just thought from the context you
>clipped, a message from JJ to which you were replying, that said:
Fuck you and your sock puppets and fuck jj and his sock puppets. The two of
you are the biggest jerks in the world. It is impossible to imagine why any
one older than 10 would use sock puppets.
InsuranceBroker
>Message-id: <b23u5r$2cp$1...@flood.xnet.com>
>
> And they covered this in which class in law school?
JJ, is anyone up to debating you other than your sock puppet. JJ, you are
about as offensive and immature as anyone on the internet.
JJ, when you hold a job for long enough to get vested in a company then you can
start telling us how good you are. Apparently you are an immature idiot who
gets fired from one job after another. I suspect you milked your family as
long as possible getting an education that you never earned one cent from.
alexy
>>Subject: Re: Good write up on the Unemployment report.
>>From: alexy al...@mindhelicalwire.com
>>Date: 2/8/2003 3:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <npqa4v8mbars59ur2...@4ax.com>
>
>>>Sure you did. YOu made several comments on the increase woman in the
>>>workforce.
>>
>>Oh, okay. Yes I did say that
>
>Thank you asshole. I saw you evil twin JJ was playing the Alex game today.
>Maybe you should understand what total asshole that makes you and JJ look when
>you play sock puppets.
When is it that you imagine I have "played sock puppet"?
> What a totally immature and stupid way to try to make
>it look like you are anything but a total and complete idiot. Now ALex, why
>do you and jj like sockpuppets??????????//
What makes you think I do. Although it was funny watching you fall for
this last one.
>> I just thought from the context you
>>clipped, a message from JJ to which you were replying, that said:
>
>Fuck you and your sock puppets
What sock puppets are those? Is the paranoia getting particularly bad
tonight?
alexy
Yes. That post was a keeper. Defines IB almost as well as the one
about his kids car looking out the window watching the tree to grow!
Thus Spake Zarathustra
>> LOL. I was being sarcastic. None of the drawbacks I listed were legitimate.
>>
>
>No. My god what a surprise. Maybe that is why you stated that no one at all
>was employed. God, JJ, we can play you silly games. I noticed you took them
>out. Not that it was so clearly crap.
Took what out?
Thus Spake Zarathustra
>JJ, when you hold a job for long enough to get vested in a company then you can
>start telling us how good you are. Apparently you are an immature idiot who
>gets fired from one job after another. I suspect you milked your family as
>long as possible getting an education that you never earned one cent from.
As usual, your suspicions are all incorrect. But keep playing. Maybe
you'll win something in one of the secondary drawings.
Thus Spake Zarathustra
message <o1cb4v4as09tgqr99...@4ax.com>...
>>Fuck you and your sock puppets
>What sock puppets are those? Is the paranoia getting particularly bad
>tonight?
He's always accusing you of what I do, and vice versa. But he was burned so
badly this time by the posts I made while testing Mozilla that it doesn't
surprise me that he is lashing out blindly. Look at what he did. Even Tom
Hanks could not do as convincing an act playing Forest Gump.
Damn, I still can't get over how IB thought my sarcasm was actually a
"powerful post", until he found out that the same words he had just called
"powerful" came from me. What a hypocrite. But a very funny hyocrite. I hope
IB lives a long time. I'll miss his high comedy if he disappears.
InsuranceBroker
>Message-id: <o1cb4v4as09tgqr99...@4ax.com>
>>Fuck you and your sock puppets
>What sock puppets are those? Is the paranoia getting particularly bad
>tonight?
In your cae Alex, the sock puppets were you "serious" post that you later
admited were just silly game posts. Same concept as sock puppet. YOu post
crap knowing that it is crap to see someone reaction. When most of your posts
are crap so how are people going to separate the real crap from other crap.
Thus Spake Zarathustra
That car thing was funny (even funnier than the Apache thing about which we
often keep ribbing philotsopher), but was really just a case of chaotic
grammar that just so happened to have reorganized itself into something very
funny. Here we have a case where chaotic *thoughts* were
reorganized into something very funny.
InsuranceBroker
>Message-id: <b24dr4$af7$1...@flood.xnet.com>
>
>
>That car thing was funny (even funnier than the Apache thing about which we
>often keep ribbing philotsopher), but was really just a case of chaotic
>grammar that just so happened to have reorganized itself into something very
>funny. Here we have a case where chaotic *thoughts* were
>reorganized into something very funny.
YOu to jerks are amazing. It was cat not car. I am glad that you two can have
so much enjoyment over a typig error that happened two years ago.
It is amazing what low life you and Alex happen to be. God, the goat tender
and the grandson of a cow tender. Must be the bond.
Thus Spake Zarathustra
>God, the goat tender
>and the grandson of a cow tender. Must be the bond.
My grandfather and great-grandfather were self-employed their entire life.
They never had anyone else telling them what to wear, when to start working,
when to stop working, how to do their job, etc. They had zero worries that
somebody else was going to take their job and neither one ever lost a job or
got laid off, ever. They each built a house for their family to grow up in
and both houses still stand to this day, in quite liveable state, each house
presiding over about 120 acres each. They were financially solvent their
entire life. You can laugh at that and mock it if you want, but I suspect
that a number of the regulars here would love to have that kind of life.
InsuranceBroker
>From: "Thus Spake Zarathustra" niet...@large.com
>Message-id: <b24etv$b16$1...@flood.xnet.com>
>
> My grandfather and great-grandfather were self-employed their entire life.
>They never had anyone else telling them what to wear, when t
were dairy farmers. The dairy farmers were the most organized and collected
more government money than any other groups. >They had zero worries that
>somebody else was going to take their job
Of course they would not. They got tons of government money.
>They each built a house for their family to grow up in
>and both houses still stand to this day, in quite liveable state, each house
>presiding over about 120 acres each
I am sure that they could build a nice house with all the government money the
dairy farmers got.
> They were financially solvent their
>entire life.
Of course they got tons of pork money fromt he government.
>You can laugh at that and mock it if you want, but I suspect
>that a number of the regulars here would love to have that kind of life
Nay, I suspect most of the people here would rather earn their money instead of
having it mailed to the farm.
alexy
>>Subject: Re: Good write up on the Unemployment report.
>>From: alexy al...@mindhelicalwire.com
>>Date: 2/8/2003 8:37 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <o1cb4v4as09tgqr99...@4ax.com>
>
>>>Fuck you and your sock puppets
>>What sock puppets are those? Is the paranoia getting particularly bad
>>tonight?
>
>In your cae Alex, the sock puppets were you "serious" post that you later
>admited were just silly game posts. Same concept as sock puppet.
No, entirely different concept, you blithering idiot. A sock puppet is
an alternate name under which someone posts. What a dolt!!
InsuranceBroker
>Message-id: <pdob4v8975v2olutk...@4ax.com>
>>admited were just silly game posts. Same concept as sock puppet.
>No, entirely different concept, you blithering idiot. A sock puppet is
>an alternate name under which someone posts. What a dolt!!
>
No it is not. In one case you have a total asshole posting bullshit under a
different user name. The other you have a total asshole posting bullshit under
the same user name but it is still bullshit.
Hey it is the same immature conduct.
Alex, when you post crap with malice and intentional game playing, you are no
different than a sock puppet.
Alex, I feel you have a need to pick on people on the internet because you are
a very small individual in character.
Thus Spake Zarathustra
The only government money either of them ever received directly was
Carter's PIK program, where my grandfather got payment-in-kind to keep a
field or two uncultivated. He thought that was the craziest thing he had ever
heard of, and he was convinced that Jimmy Carter was nuts.
>
>Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
InsuranceBroker
>From: "Thus Spake Zarathustra" niet...@large.com
>Message-id: <b25obg$qaq$1...@flood.xnet.com>
> The only government money either of them ever received directly was
>Carter's PIK program, where my grandfather got payment-in-kind to keep a
>field or two uncultivated.
So you are a product of government money. I am certain that they got money
before but you were not aware of it.
It is funny that you stopped going to school just they they killed the farmer's
money programs.
>He thought that was the craziest thing he had ever
>heard of, and he was convinced that Jimmy Carter was nuts.
But he cashed the check. It sort of is an indication of your real values. It
is ok for us to complain about programmers but you r family had no problem
taking government money.
Liz
"Thus Spake Zarathustra" <niet...@large.com> wrote in message
news:b23u5r$2cp$1...@flood.xnet.com...
> In alt.computer.consultants, Liz <lizs...@swbell.net> wrote in message
> <xga1a.674330$TJ.9...@post-02.news.easynews.com>...
> >... my VERY rough estimate (more
> >or less a smell test) was around 9-11% ... one thing I'm quite sure of:
> >it's NOT 5.7%
>
> And they covered this in which class in law school?
>
did you read "smell test" ?? having a particularly difficult day ? if you
want to believe 5.7%, because the government says so, or for any other
reason, be my guest ... I'm here to tell you it's unmitigated bullshit ..
and don't bother asking for or demanding empirical evidence ... I don't have
any and I don't intend to scour the BLS web site to persuade you .. Whether
his numbers are precisely correct or not, I think Keating is more likely
than not on the right track, and that's on top of other anecdotal evidence
.. don't overrate empiricism; it will disappoint you
Tim Keating
<NotForJ...@directinternet11.com1> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:30:22 GMT, "Liz" <lizs...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tim Keating" <NotForJ...@directinternet11.com1> wrote in message
>>
>>> Take at least 80% of the self employed. 7.3 Million workers.
>>> If they're not filling 941's, then they're not making any money.
>>> (equilivent to unemployed)..
>>
>>they may be filing late, or not at all, because (a) they need all the money,
>>and/or (b) they antipcipate a much lower tax burden at year-end ... which of
>
>SE tax is doesn't have deductibles.. Only things like earned income
>tax credit can offset SE tax liabilities. Deductions, # dependents,
>losses, mortgage interest payments, etc have no effect on SE tax
>liabilities.
>
>Once they exceed ~$500 in year end tax liabilities, they become
>subject to stiff UNDERPAYMENT penalties.
>
>>course is another variant on "unemployment"
>
>You missed my previous calculation from another thread.
>
>:A follow up.. Just based on SE taxables (no deductions possible).. (15.3%) and the Estimated taxes paid by SE and others.
>:http://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/03013100.txt
>
>Note: Used the number for a 4 month period that includes all estimated
>tax payments for the LAST quarter of the tax year. (Last chance to
>balance the books).. (The number is in line with traditional
>collection patterns.. No hugh statistical variations.)
>
>:397million(1st qtr) *4(qtrs/yr)*(1/.153)/9.213 Million SE workers == Average yearly self employed income == 1126$/Yr !!!
>
>I'll add a minor correction.. only 92.35% of each dollar earned is
>subject to 15.3% SE tax.
>
>397million(1st qtr) *4(qtrs/yr)*(1/.9235)*(1/.153)/9.213 Million SE
>workers == Average yearly self employed income == $1216/Yr !!!
>
>I.E.$1216/yr is still less than 6 weeks at minimum wage..
>
>So for all practical purposes..
> 9 Million SE workers are UNEMPLOYED!!!
>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> (dol wf#) (wf adj) (Pd adj)
>>> 145,301K + 4,500K + 3,000K = 152,801 K workforce.
>>>
>>> (new UI#) (new wf#)
>>> 27,495K/152,801K == 18.0% unemployment rate..
As for the 18% rate..It might be a little on the low side..
I almost forgot about the DOL changing of the household survey data
collection method and the resulting doubling of the non-parcipation
rate, five(5) to ten(10) percent.
If they managed to convince those households, with at least one
unemployed worker not to participate.. Well, that would add another
5.5 Million to the unemployment/workforce figures, thusly increasing
unemployment by another 2 to 3 of percent.
Then there are the millions of homeless people, and the respective
homeless shelters.. The DOL isn't going to be including them in their
survey data.
>>
>>interesting; I hope you're off somewhere ... my VERY rough estimate (more
>
> Maybe.. then maybe not...
Again, 18% unemployment rate may be a tad on the low side.
>
>>or less a smell test) was around 9-11% ... one thing I'm quite sure of:
>>it's NOT 5.7%
>
>check out U6 for Jan 2003.
>http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
InsuranceBroker
>Date: 2/9/2003 10:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <8s5e4vcuism53l76l...@4ax.com>
> I almost forgot about the DOL changing of the household survey data
>collection method and the resulting doubling of the non-parcipation
>rate, five(5) to ten(10) percent.
> If they managed to convince those households, with at least one
>unemployed worker not to participate.. Well, that would add another
>5.5 Million to the unemployment/workforce figures,
When I looked at the survey methods, I noticed that they fixed the household
for a year. If a person returned home to the household that person was in
added. So who is most likely to return home. One with a job or one without.
Every dirty trick has been used by the BLS to make it look better than it is.
Tim Keating
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Good write up on the Unemployment report.
>>From: Phil Ovvschitt n...@nl.com
>>Date: 2/8/2003 10:47 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <b2394h$nnj$1...@flood.xnet.com>
>>
>>
>
>> So according to that article, Keating was full of shit when during the
>>release of December and November numbers he said that seasonal
>>adjustment was being used to make the numbers look better than they
>>actually were
>
>Not at all. The is the way the government designed it. They are totally and
>completely only a method to hide the truth. The reason they state is to smooth
>out the numbers. Why not produce the reprot with and without season
>adjustments?
Of course JJ, like a good delusional troll won't be able to dig up any
quotes to back up his statements.
For the Nov, Dec, and Jan I focused my posts on weekly UI seasonal
adjustments and the termination of extended UI benefits.
>
>It is like the cost of living adjustments. They seasonally adjust the oil
>price out when it is going up in the spring but leave it in when the driving
>season is over.
>
>>. The fact was that seasonal adjustment was having exactly
>>the OPPOSITE effect from what Keating was telling you.
Only JJ, fantasizes about posts I haven't made !!!
>
>Actually it was not. The 80,000 that they put back in yesterday was what you
>are trying to claim. The government corrected what you are talking about when
>the old report was stale.
>
>> Thanks for
>>pointing out Tim's bullshit. You have done a valuable public service.
From a post I made on 1/22/03..
"Disability rolls rise, skew labor data "
http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/economy/disability/index.htm
"Recent research finds a 60% jump in number of disability recipients
keeping unemployment low."
"The "labor force," 142.5 million strong, does not include people who
draw disability benefits from the Social Security Administration
(SSA). As of December 2002, there were about 5.5 million adults
getting disability benefits, totaling about $4.6 billion a month. "
The only bullshit JJ finds, is when he sticks in head in sand.
>Sorry buddy but you have to dig a bit more on this one. Tim might not be
>totally correct but he is actively gathering source of infomration so I will
>accept him more than those that look for grammer. I was I was better with my
>grammer. Most people who read my post instead of just killfile wish I was
>also.
The DOL abandon sound scientific data collection methods back in
1994.. It pretty obvious to all, except the trolls, that the DOL is
manipulating the unemployment numbers for physiological, political
purposes. The real unemployment rate could easily exceed 20%.
alexy
>It pretty obvious to all, except the trolls, that the DOL is
>manipulating the unemployment numbers for physiological, political
>purposes.
What physiological purpose could the manipulation of unemployment
numbers possibly serve? ;-)
InsuranceBroker
>Date: 2/10/2003 9:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <75pg4vsjqoqt6nvgk...@4ax.com>
>What physiological purpose could the manipulation of unemployment
>numbers possibly serve? ;-)
>--
You are kidding. The federal government is many trillions of dollars in debt.
The "good" numbers help give the impression that they can someday repay the
debt. Of course they also lie about the inflation rates so as to keep the
monthly payments down.
The old Socialist Greenspan will be in Congress on Wednesday and he will
probably start would with the classic...I see no inflation. One of the biggest
reson he does not see inflation is he does not gas up his own limo. He does
not pay the heat for his government provided house. He never picks up the
lunch tab.
Now if you or I could live rent free and never pick up the tab and never have
to pay for transporation....American would probably look ok to me.
alexy
>>Subject: Re: Good write up on the Unemployment report.
>>From: alexy al...@mindhelicalwire.com
>>Date: 2/10/2003 9:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <75pg4vsjqoqt6nvgk...@4ax.com>
>
>>What physiological purpose could the manipulation of unemployment
>>numbers possibly serve? ;-)
>>--
>
>You are kidding.
No. Note the grin at the end of my question, and go back and read what
was actually stated, not what was clearly intended.
> The federal government is many trillions of dollars in debt.
>The "good" numbers help give the impression that they can someday repay the
>debt. Of course they also lie about the inflation rates so as to keep the
>monthly payments down.
>The old Socialist Greenspan will be in Congress on Wednesday and he will
>probably start would with the classic...I see no inflation. One of the biggest
>reson he does not see inflation is he does not gas up his own limo. He does
>not pay the heat for his government provided house. He never picks up the
>lunch tab.
>
>Now if you or I could live rent free and never pick up the tab and never have
>to pay for transporation....American would probably look ok to me.
>Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
--
Philotsopher
> Tim Keating <NotForJ...@directinternet11.com1> wrote:
>
> >It pretty obvious to all, except the trolls, that the DOL is
> >manipulating the unemployment numbers for physiological, political
> >purposes.
>
> What physiological purpose could the manipulation of unemployment
> numbers possibly serve? ;-)
> --
ejaculate.
Thus Spake Zarathustra
LOL. Intuition is far more disappointing that skepticism. I don't believe
5.7%, but that is because I know that there is a margin of error in the
survey methods, in the theory behind the stats and in the estimate itself. I
just happen to see nothing at all from Keating that indicates that his
figures are more likely to be correct (or as corrct for that matter). He
obviously doesn't understand the survey methods, the theory behind the stats
nor the estimates themselves. In addition, he seems to lack understanding of
even basic logic. He once argued, seriously argued mind you, that the logical
truth or untruth of a statement determines whether or not the grammar used
was correct. The guys over in alt.english.usage laughed about that one after
he was long gone, mocking his "truth-based grammar" (as was the only real
appropriate response to
anything Keating posts).
However, I don't think any of this will make any difference in YOUR
beliefs, because you WANT to believe he is right. I've been in enough
religious discussions to know that logic and reason will have no effect on
this. Whenever someone starts talking about how "evidence" is unnecessary
they have fallen into the realm of angels, fairies and ridiculous saviour
stories. Quite frankly, when someone reveals that this is the realm they
prefer, they've flipped the bozo bit and are basically cannon-fodder in the
intellectual battlefield. I'm sure you have some opinion on that, that you
feel compelled to share with the world, as there is usually an ego behind
every religious or anti-empiricial belief. I'll not let my non-interest in
the blurbles and snorts of such cannon fodder be a factor in your sharing
this most valuable insight with others
who are almost certainly going to be more appreciative than I.
Redd
times that the government would purposely misstate or lie about
unemployment numbers. Real simply, Yes or No.
And don't answer with any of this bullshit about margins of
error.
--
javatek?@usa.com
remove the ? to reply.
"Thus Spake Zarathustra" <niet...@large.com> wrote in message
news:b2i1cj$79a$1...@flood.xnet.com...
Thus Spake Zarathustra
<QLw6a.73600$Kj2....@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>...
>Just one simply question. Do you believe that in bad economic
>times that the government would purposely misstate or lie about
>unemployment numbers. Real simply, Yes or No.
>And don't answer with any of this bullshit about margins of
>error.
I think the administration would try to deflect attention away from bad
economic numbers, say by starting a war in Iraq, but I don't think they could
get away with outright lying on them. It isn't like when Johnson lied about
VietNam. There are third parties that do their own polling and studies when
it comes to macroeconomics and if they all found that the govt numbers tended
to biased they could make a lot of money by
selling the correct numbers.
That doesn't mean that the government numbers are always right. Errors and
lies are two different things.
InsuranceBroker
>Message-id: <b3e6u8$635$1...@flood.xnet.com>
>
> I think the administration would try to deflect attention away from bad
>economic numbers, say by starting a war in Iraq, but I don't think they could
>
>get away with outright lying on them.
Right. There is no inflation. The unemployment rate is 5.7 percent but we
have no idea how many people are in the country.
> It isn't like when Johnson lied about
>VietNam. There are third parties that do their own polling and studies when
>it comes to macroeconomics and if they all found that the govt numbers
>tended
>to biased they could make a lot of money by
>selling the correct numbers.
But they make a lot of money being in bed with government numbrs. Economicist
are generally a group not to be trusted.
> That doesn't mean that the government numbers are always right. Errors and
>lies are two different things.
>
Not to the government.
Thus Spake Zarathustra
>> It isn't like when Johnson lied about
>>VietNam. There are third parties that do their own polling and studies when
>>it comes to macroeconomics and if they all found that the govt numbers
>>tended
>>to biased they could make a lot of money by
>>selling the correct numbers.
>But they make a lot of money being in bed with government numbrs.
How do they make more money by simply agreeing with the government numbers
if they know they are wrong? Do you think the government sends every
independent economist a check if they agree with the government numbers?
InsuranceBroker
>From: "Thus Spake Zarathustra" niet...@large.com
>Message-id: <b3g54o$10$1...@flood.xnet.com>
do not get to eat the big shrimp at the dinner.
Economist are clearly a group that live off the government money.
Thus Spake Zarathustra
>> How do they make more money by simply agreeing with the government numbers
>>if they know they are wrong? Do you think the government sends every
>>independent economist a check if they agree with the government numbers?
>>
>Pretty much. Just like reports, if they go against the company line then they
>do not get to eat the big shrimp at the dinner.
Except that independent economists don't work for the government, and
there would be a lot of money to be made by publishing corrfect numbers if
everybody else was publishing bogus numbers, because many investors would pay
for that inside scoop.
InsuranceBroker
>From: "Thus Spake Zarathustra" niet...@large.com
>Message-id: <b3g647$au$1...@flood.xnet.com>
> Except that independent economists don't work for the government,
Bullshit. Most of them work in the education system and only a globalist like
you would try to argue that education is not basically controlled by the
government and the grants and research.
> and
>there would be a lot of money to be made by publishing corrfect numbers if
>everybody else was publishing bogus numbers, because many investors would pay
>
>for that inside scoop.
Nay. The people who want the government to lie are the globlist like Rupport
Murdock. YOu would not get him to publish anything the puts his 100,000,000
investment in India.com in harms way.
Thus Spake Zarathustra
>> Except that independent economists don't work for the government,
>
>Bullshit. Most of them work in the education system and only a globalist like
>you would try to argue that education is not basically controlled by the
>government and the grants and research.
Actually most work in private industry.