Unemployment Rate Facts

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 13:19
VIEWED: 54220
PAGE 5 of 94

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, April 9, 2018 2:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Why do I have to repeat anything? I'm not arguing with you.

Nothing in my post was arguing your point and actually augments your own argument.
Arguing pro or con about the accuracy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics does you no good, but why should it? The BLS serves the Feds and political parties, not you.

Looking at the BLS numbers, the Feds could decide to beat the Corporations into submission so that one of them will hire you at a good wage. Or the Feds can decide to do nothing useful. Depends on who controls Congress and by the word "control" I mean 67% majority, not a measly 51%. In the range between 66% and 50%, things tend to not change for the better because of the rules of Congress, but rather devolve into chaos. At 67%, things can change fast. (See for example: WWII where more than 67% of Congress was willing to do whatever it takes to win. The Ford Corp, as one example, hated that the Feds bullied it to make B-24 bombers and hire more workers. Henry Ford refused on principle to hire women. He was bitter. He was forced to resign because he was standing in the way of what the Feds wanted.)

Whether you believe that fast change in the future is for the better or worse depends on which party you prefer. It does not matter what the BLS unemployment numbers are. Those are just for Congress and the President. If they want to do something about unemployment, then Congress and the President could use force on the Corporations. But a 67% majority in Congress does not care, and they won't in the near future, which leaves Corporations to do as they please -- maximize their profits rather than employment.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

I know you're shilling for the Democrats again, but they come with way too much other baggage for anyone to vote them in.

I suggest they start taking a much more moderate approach to a host of other issues if they ever want to see a supermajority again.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 9, 2018 2:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Why do I have to repeat anything? I'm not arguing with you.

Nothing in my post was arguing your point and actually augments your own argument.
Arguing pro or con about the accuracy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics does you no good, but why should it? The BLS serves the Feds and political parties, not you.

Looking at the BLS numbers, the Feds could decide to beat the Corporations into submission so that one of them will hire you at a good wage. Or the Feds can decide to do nothing useful. Depends on who controls Congress and by the word "control" I mean 67% majority, not a measly 51%. In the range between 66% and 50%, things tend to not change for the better because of the rules of Congress, but rather devolve into chaos. At 67%, things can change fast. (See for example: WWII where more than 67% of Congress was willing to do whatever it takes to win. The Ford Corp, as one example, hated that the Feds bullied it to make B-24 bombers and hire more workers. Henry Ford refused on principle to hire women. He was bitter. He was forced to resign because he was standing in the way of what the Feds wanted.)

Whether you believe that fast change in the future is for the better or worse depends on which party you prefer. It does not matter what the BLS unemployment numbers are. Those are just for Congress and the President. If they want to do something about unemployment, then Congress and the President could use force on the Corporations. But a 67% majority in Congress does not care, and they won't in the near future, which leaves Corporations to do as they please -- maximize their profits rather than employment.

The feverish SpinDoctoring that second insists upon doing for Obamanomics is impressive.
Any reasonable person in 2006 and 2008 knew Democraps and Obama would wreck the Economy, and when the facts threatened to reveal this truth, Obama endeavored to cover-up the facts, redefine the numbers to reflect his preferred lies. This is where 6ix starts his complaint. That Obamanomics worked so hard to ship all of our jobs overseas is glossed over. Just ignore the Obamanomics worst performance in history. Never you mind Obamanomics creating more unemployed than FDR's Great Depression. Don't pay any attention to real Democrap failures being accurately reported. Just ignore reality.
So the Libtard solution to their failures being exposed? Give them MORE CONTROL over the Economy, eliminate Free Market, eliminate Free Enterprise, return to Communism. You just don't understand that you didn't give them ENOUGH control when they were Hell-bent on destroying America. Their model is when the Isolationist FDR & Democraps grew the Axis too large, they were able to take Government control of private companies to enforce their Socialist Utopias.

After The Unions forced our jobs overseas, it is difficult to reverse. Trump has done some, but Unions insist upon sending more overseas, and replacing as many as possible with automation.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 9, 2018 2:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
That U-6 data is hidden pretty well. I added the data to my earlier post. Found it in Table A-15 after 2010.
Your table is littered with Libtard BS.
Stock Market Crash in March 2000? Do you believe that?
And 3.8 is the lowest differential, while the prior 2 years are 3.1% - Libtard Maths at work.
And 9.9% us as low as 8.4% - more Libtard Maths at work. Sheesh.

6ix, if your data is actually as real as you claim, please convert these Libtard Maths into something non-Libtards can understand.

Merely linking to a Libtard source does not bolster your claims.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, April 9, 2018 2:37 AM

I don't see how it's Libtard.

They're saying that the numbers were bullshit under Obama as well.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Monday, April 9, 2018 3:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

The feverish SpinDoctoring that second insists upon doing for Obamanomics is impressive.
Any reasonable person in 2006 and 2008 knew Democraps and Obama would wreck the Economy, and when the facts threatened to reveal this truth, Obama endeavored to cover-up the facts, redefine the numbers to reflect his preferred lies. This is where 6ix starts his complaint. That Obamanomics worked so hard to ship all of our jobs overseas is glossed over.
So the Libtard solution to their failures being exposed? Give them MORE CONTROL over the Economy, eliminate Free Market, eliminate Free Enterprise, return to Communism. You just don't understand that you didn't give them ENOUGH control when they were Hell-bent on destroying America. Their model is when the Isolationist FDR & Democraps grew the Axis too large, they were able to take Government control of private companies to enforce their Socialist Utopias.

After The Unions forced our jobs overseas, it is difficult to reverse. Trump has done some, but Unions insist upon sending more overseas, and replacing as many as possible with automation.

JewelStaiteFan, I'm in the top 1% and you aren't anything more than ignorant nut on how Corporations work. Flexible work arrangements, which include crowdsourcing platforms such as Uber, as well as freelancers and independent contractors, increased about 50 percent from 2005 to 2015. These jobs account for 94 percent — nearly all — of the net employment growth in the United States over that time. Neither JewelStaiteFan, 6ixStringJack, nor the GOP know how to stop Corporations from screwing over their workers. If you knew how, you wouldn't dare use your knowledge because you would have to kick many very rich people in the balls to make them behave generously toward Americans in the lower half of the economy. The rich won't voluntarily treat their employees better. It feels unnatural, even crazy to the rich, paying more than the least amount in wages. That's my experience.

www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/04/walmarts-future-workforce
-robots-and-freelancers/557063/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, April 9, 2018 5:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
I'm in the top 1%

No you're not.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 9, 2018 5:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't see how it's Libtard.

They're saying that the numbers were bullshit under Obama as well.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1. Explain the Fake News Story that the Stock Market Crashed in March 2000.

2. Explain how "U3 closest to U6" at 3.8 in 2002 is closer than 3.1 in 2001, and closer than 3.1 in 2000.

3. Explain how 2016 (Obama) has returned to pre-recession levels with U3 of 4.9% and U6 of 9.9%, while the onset of The Rock-the-Vote Recession was February 2008, and these numbers are worse than every non-Recession year 2007, 2006, 2005 since the last Recession - and not as good as 2008 Recession year.

4. Explain how your number for 2018 U6 is 8.2% while BLS reported 8.9%. BLS is the Definer of U6, and the sole provider of that number - so why are you claiming a number which does not match?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, April 9, 2018 7:30 AM

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

Quote:
2. 2. Explain how "U3 closest to U6" at 3.8 in 2002 is closer than 3.1 in 2001, and closer than 3.1 in 2000.

I don't understand the question. What is 3.8 and what is 3.1 and 3.1?

I'll get back to you on the rest later. Meanwhile, you're going to have to find a link for your numbers. I'm having a hard time finding a yearly average of numbers since they seem to be broken down by months. Either you or the article I linked might just be taking a number from the month during the year to best suit your particular arguments.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 9, 2018 8:57 AM

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
Quote:
2. 2. Explain how "U3 closest to U6" at 3.8 in 2002 is closer than 3.1 in 2001, and closer than 3.1 in 2000.
I don't understand the question. What is 3.8 and what is 3.1 and 3.1?

I'll get back to you on the rest later. Meanwhile, you're going to have to find a link for your numbers. I'm having a hard time finding a yearly average of numbers since they seem to be broken down by months. Either you or the article I linked might just be taking a number from the month during the year to best suit your particular arguments.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I forgot you can't do math.
9.5 - 5.7 = 3.8 your quoted claim of the closest U3 and U6 got in 2002.
7.3 - 4.2 = 3.1 the year prior.
7.1 - 4.0 = 3.1 the year before that.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 9, 2018 10:05 AM

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.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE