| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Fuzzy Math
I am not very good at math.
Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? |
Fuzzy Math
On 8/5/2011 9:41 AM, Eisboch wrote:
I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Just forget about the 157K for now and readjust in a future month. |
Fuzzy Math
On 05/08/2011 7:41 AM, Eisboch wrote:
I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Your math is good. Fleabaggers have a weird way of polishing turds. And assuming zero population growth, that is about a 20 year recovery not including that new jobs pay less than old jobs lost. Bottom line, bad news. This is typically the good time of year for employment, wait until Sept/Oct. -- Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution. |
Fuzzy Math
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:38:27 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 05/08/2011 7:41 AM, Eisboch wrote: I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Your math is good. Fleabaggers have a weird way of polishing turds. another racist lie, of course unemployment number count only those LOOKING for work. if you stop looking for work you're not counted, even if not working |
Fuzzy Math
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin. |
Fuzzy Math
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:38:27 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 05/08/2011 7:41 AM, Eisboch wrote: I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Your math is good. Fleabaggers have a weird way of polishing turds. And assuming zero population growth, that is about a 20 year recovery not including that new jobs pay less than old jobs lost. Bottom line, bad news. This is typically the good time of year for employment, wait until Sept/Oct. No. You're just stupid. |
Fuzzy Math
|
Fuzzy Math
|
Fuzzy Math
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:50:50 -0400, LilAbner wrote:
On 8/5/2011 12:44 PM, wrote: On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote: I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin. Would you all polish up your insults a bit? No insult was intended. I pointed out that it's not an empirical math issue. |
Fuzzy Math
wrote in message ... On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin. I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to stay even. However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only counts people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up are not counted. In other words : Fuzzy math. |
Fuzzy Math
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 14:19:24 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin. I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to stay even. Oh.. sorry.. I didn't address that. I think it's probably that people stopped being counted. Obviously, that's not good news. However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only counts people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up are not counted. In other words : Fuzzy math. Well, I guess it is, but it's not any more misleading that it always has been. So, I guess I'd say the new fuzzy math is the same as the old fuzzy math. (Seems like there's a rock tune along the same lines, but I can't recall which one.) |
Fuzzy Math
On 8/5/11 2:19 PM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message ... On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin. I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to stay even. However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only counts people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up are not counted. In other words : Fuzzy math. It's been that way for a long, long time. -- Don't forget to leave a bit of beef for rec.boat's right-wing conservatrashers and ID spoofers to feed upon. The more they feed, the quicker rec.boats will fall into the black hole of cyberspace and disappear. |
Fuzzy Math
|
Fuzzy Math
On 05/08/2011 12:19 PM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message ... On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin. I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to stay even. However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only counts people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up are not counted. In other words : Fuzzy math. Yep. I still count people unemployed for a year and still pounding out resumes with no luck. A lot of people giving up, sad. I would not doubt real unemployment without the fleabagger bull**** is over 20%. And it is going to get higher. Freaking fleabaggers don't realize Bernanke inflation is causing unemployment. If a person earns/spends 20 units of stuff, 5% inflation be it food costs or civic/state/fed taxes is next month 19 units....1/20th less need for employment. The hidden costs of inflation. Bernanke needs to stop his electronic counterfeiting (QE) as really it is an inflationary tax on the worlds reserve currency. People are catching onto this fraud. Debts need to balance up and pay a fair rate. But hey, I profited today in cherry picking some good stocks tha have already returned gains. Lots of weak bottoms today. -- Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution. |
Fuzzy Math
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:20:35 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 05/08/2011 12:19 PM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin. I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to stay even. However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only counts people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up are not counted. In other words : Fuzzy math. Yep. I still count people unemployed for a year and still pounding out resumes with no luck. A lot of people giving up, sad. I would not doubt real unemployment without the fleabagger bull**** is over 20%. And it is going to get higher. Freaking fleabaggers don't realize Bernanke inflation is causing unemployment. If a person earns/spends 20 units of stuff, 5% inflation be it food costs or civic/state/fed taxes is next month 19 units....1/20th less need for employment. The hidden costs of inflation. Bernanke needs to stop his electronic counterfeiting (QE) as really it is an inflationary tax on the worlds reserve currency. People are catching onto this fraud. Debts need to balance up and pay a fair rate. But hey, I profited today in cherry picking some good stocks tha have already returned gains. Lots of weak bottoms today. Oh shut up. Nobody cares what a fool like you has to say. |
Fuzzy Math
wrote in message .. . On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: In other words : Fuzzy math. Well, I guess it is, but it's not any more misleading that it always has been. So, I guess I'd say the new fuzzy math is the same as the old fuzzy math. (Seems like there's a rock tune along the same lines, but I can't recall which one.) --------------------------------------------------- I'll see if I can get one of the Bob Dylan wannbies at my shop to write something. :-) BTW ... thanks for your reasoned and well presented rebuttals to my recent opinions posted here. Goes to prove that rec.boats participants can still carry on a civil discussion, even if they disagree. Eisboch |
Fuzzy Math
On 8/5/2011 6:12 PM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message ... On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: In other words : Fuzzy math. Well, I guess it is, but it's not any more misleading that it always has been. So, I guess I'd say the new fuzzy math is the same as the old fuzzy math. (Seems like there's a rock tune along the same lines, but I can't recall which one.) --------------------------------------------------- I'll see if I can get one of the Bob Dylan wannbies at my shop to write something. :-) BTW ... thanks for your reasoned and well presented rebuttals to my recent opinions posted here. Goes to prove that rec.boats participants can still carry on a civil discussion, even if they disagree. Eisboch Me thinks you spoke too soon. |
Fuzzy Math
On 05/08/2011 3:53 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:20:35 -0600, wrote: On 05/08/2011 12:19 PM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote: I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin. I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to stay even. However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only counts people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up are not counted. In other words : Fuzzy math. Yep. I still count people unemployed for a year and still pounding out resumes with no luck. A lot of people giving up, sad. I would not doubt real unemployment without the fleabagger bull**** is over 20%. And it is going to get higher. Freaking fleabaggers don't realize Bernanke inflation is causing unemployment. If a person earns/spends 20 units of stuff, 5% inflation be it food costs or civic/state/fed taxes is next month 19 units....1/20th less need for employment. The hidden costs of inflation. Bernanke needs to stop his electronic counterfeiting (QE) as really it is an inflationary tax on the worlds reserve currency. People are catching onto this fraud. Debts need to balance up and pay a fair rate. But hey, I profited today in cherry picking some good stocks tha have already returned gains. Lots of weak bottoms today. Oh shut up. Nobody cares what a fool like you has to say. http://www.france24.com/en/20110805-...ely-save-us-eu Read an weep. Your biggest non-US Fed creditor just stated USA needs to stop the fraud. Fleabaggers can blame the Chinese, but USA screwed itself with debt. -- Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution. |
Fuzzy Math
On 8/5/2011 6:46 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 05/08/2011 3:53 PM, wrote: On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:20:35 -0600, wrote: On 05/08/2011 12:19 PM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote: I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin. I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to stay even. However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only counts people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up are not counted. In other words : Fuzzy math. Yep. I still count people unemployed for a year and still pounding out resumes with no luck. A lot of people giving up, sad. I would not doubt real unemployment without the fleabagger bull**** is over 20%. And it is going to get higher. Freaking fleabaggers don't realize Bernanke inflation is causing unemployment. If a person earns/spends 20 units of stuff, 5% inflation be it food costs or civic/state/fed taxes is next month 19 units....1/20th less need for employment. The hidden costs of inflation. Bernanke needs to stop his electronic counterfeiting (QE) as really it is an inflationary tax on the worlds reserve currency. People are catching onto this fraud. Debts need to balance up and pay a fair rate. But hey, I profited today in cherry picking some good stocks tha have already returned gains. Lots of weak bottoms today. Oh shut up. Nobody cares what a fool like you has to say. http://www.france24.com/en/20110805-...ely-save-us-eu Read an weep. Your biggest non-US Fed creditor just stated USA needs to stop the fraud. Fleabaggers can blame the Chinese, but USA screwed itself with debt. The crazy little bitch advocates stifling free speech now. China owns us now. We'd better heed their warnings. |
Fuzzy Math
On 05/08/2011 5:00 PM, BeachBum wrote:
On 8/5/2011 6:46 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 05/08/2011 3:53 PM, wrote: On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:20:35 -0600, wrote: On 05/08/2011 12:19 PM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote: I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin. I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to stay even. However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only counts people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up are not counted. In other words : Fuzzy math. Yep. I still count people unemployed for a year and still pounding out resumes with no luck. A lot of people giving up, sad. I would not doubt real unemployment without the fleabagger bull**** is over 20%. And it is going to get higher. Freaking fleabaggers don't realize Bernanke inflation is causing unemployment. If a person earns/spends 20 units of stuff, 5% inflation be it food costs or civic/state/fed taxes is next month 19 units....1/20th less need for employment. The hidden costs of inflation. Bernanke needs to stop his electronic counterfeiting (QE) as really it is an inflationary tax on the worlds reserve currency. People are catching onto this fraud. Debts need to balance up and pay a fair rate. But hey, I profited today in cherry picking some good stocks tha have already returned gains. Lots of weak bottoms today. Oh shut up. Nobody cares what a fool like you has to say. http://www.france24.com/en/20110805-...ely-save-us-eu Read an weep. Your biggest non-US Fed creditor just stated USA needs to stop the fraud. Fleabaggers can blame the Chinese, but USA screwed itself with debt. The crazy little bitch advocates stifling free speech now. China owns us now. We'd better heed their warnings. Yep. If China stops propping up the USD, Americans are going to wake one day to 100% inflation in a day. Happened in 1933, where gold was confiscated as it was linked to the dollar at 1/20th of an ounce. After the executive order obtained the gold at $20/oz, they devalued the buck to $35/oz. If you had gold not sent to the government, your were laughing. But if you wanted to import something you were hosed and inflation even in local goods rippled through for well over a year.... They can't really do gold this time for Americans. But say wealth confiscation tax might be possible. It is why some companies I follow are splitting up and moving a good part of world operations offshore. If offshore, and US ops loose money, if hey make a profit in China from China made they don't have USA world tax. Yep, US tax greed, ya, they can all share having nothing as business moves out. -- Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution. |
Fuzzy Math
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 18:12:00 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message . .. On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: In other words : Fuzzy math. Well, I guess it is, but it's not any more misleading that it always has been. So, I guess I'd say the new fuzzy math is the same as the old fuzzy math. (Seems like there's a rock tune along the same lines, but I can't recall which one.) --------------------------------------------------- I'll see if I can get one of the Bob Dylan wannbies at my shop to write something. :-) BTW ... thanks for your reasoned and well presented rebuttals to my recent opinions posted here. Goes to prove that rec.boats participants can still carry on a civil discussion, even if they disagree. Eisboch Darn it, I forgot to call you a moron. Oh well! Actually, I hunted around it was The Who... :) |
Fuzzy Math
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:46:57 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 05/08/2011 3:53 PM, wrote: On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:20:35 -0600, wrote: On 05/08/2011 12:19 PM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote: I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin. I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to stay even. However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only counts people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up are not counted. In other words : Fuzzy math. Yep. I still count people unemployed for a year and still pounding out resumes with no luck. A lot of people giving up, sad. I would not doubt real unemployment without the fleabagger bull**** is over 20%. And it is going to get higher. Freaking fleabaggers don't realize Bernanke inflation is causing unemployment. If a person earns/spends 20 units of stuff, 5% inflation be it food costs or civic/state/fed taxes is next month 19 units....1/20th less need for employment. The hidden costs of inflation. Bernanke needs to stop his electronic counterfeiting (QE) as really it is an inflationary tax on the worlds reserve currency. People are catching onto this fraud. Debts need to balance up and pay a fair rate. But hey, I profited today in cherry picking some good stocks tha have already returned gains. Lots of weak bottoms today. Oh shut up. Nobody cares what a fool like you has to say. http://www.france24.com/en/20110805-...ely-save-us-eu Read an weep. Your biggest non-US Fed creditor just stated USA needs to stop the fraud. Fleabaggers can blame the Chinese, but USA screwed itself with debt. Nobody cares what you think (and I use that term loosely with you). The fact is that investors are FLOCKING to the US as the best haven for their money. |
Fuzzy Math
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:26:14 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 05/08/2011 5:00 PM, BeachBum wrote: On 8/5/2011 6:46 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 05/08/2011 3:53 PM, wrote: On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:20:35 -0600, wrote: On 05/08/2011 12:19 PM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote: I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin. I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to stay even. However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only counts people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up are not counted. In other words : Fuzzy math. Yep. I still count people unemployed for a year and still pounding out resumes with no luck. A lot of people giving up, sad. I would not doubt real unemployment without the fleabagger bull**** is over 20%. And it is going to get higher. Freaking fleabaggers don't realize Bernanke inflation is causing unemployment. If a person earns/spends 20 units of stuff, 5% inflation be it food costs or civic/state/fed taxes is next month 19 units....1/20th less need for employment. The hidden costs of inflation. Bernanke needs to stop his electronic counterfeiting (QE) as really it is an inflationary tax on the worlds reserve currency. People are catching onto this fraud. Debts need to balance up and pay a fair rate. But hey, I profited today in cherry picking some good stocks tha have already returned gains. Lots of weak bottoms today. Oh shut up. Nobody cares what a fool like you has to say. http://www.france24.com/en/20110805-...ely-save-us-eu Read an weep. Your biggest non-US Fed creditor just stated USA needs to stop the fraud. Fleabaggers can blame the Chinese, but USA screwed itself with debt. The crazy little bitch advocates stifling free speech now. China owns us now. We'd better heed their warnings. Yep. If China stops propping up the USD, Americans are going to wake one day to 100% inflation in a day. Happened in 1933, where gold was confiscated as it was linked to the dollar at 1/20th of an ounce. After the executive order obtained the gold at $20/oz, they devalued the buck to $35/oz. If you had gold not sent to the government, your were laughing. But if you wanted to import something you were hosed and inflation even in local goods rippled through for well over a year.... They can't really do gold this time for Americans. But say wealth confiscation tax might be possible. It is why some companies I follow are splitting up and moving a good part of world operations offshore. If offshore, and US ops loose money, if hey make a profit in China from China made they don't have USA world tax. Yep, US tax greed, ya, they can all share having nothing as business moves out. Yep, you're stupid and another moron agrees with you. Call CNN! |
Fuzzy Math
|
Fuzzy Math
|
Fuzzy Math
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:10:14 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 05/08/2011 10:44 AM, wrote: On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote: I am not very good at math. Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the unemployment rate to *drop*? Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin. Yep, the rise of unemployment started with Bernanke and the Democrat congress of 2006. Go figure. uh no. you're too stupid to understand the biggest components of the debt are the 1. bush tax cuts of 2001 2. the bush tax cuts of 2003 3. bush's 2 trillion dollar iraq war ALL from a GOP congress not too bright are you? you've been told this before. but you're incredibly dumb |
Fuzzy Math
On 06/08/2011 7:05 AM, X-Man wrote:
In , says... wrote in message ... On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote: In other words : Fuzzy math. Well, I guess it is, but it's not any more misleading that it always has been. So, I guess I'd say the new fuzzy math is the same as the old fuzzy math. (Seems like there's a rock tune along the same lines, but I can't recall which one.) --------------------------------------------------- I'll see if I can get one of the Bob Dylan wannbies at my shop to write something. :-) BTW ... thanks for your reasoned and well presented rebuttals to my recent opinions posted here. Goes to prove that rec.boats participants can still carry on a civil discussion, even if they disagree. Eisboch Unlike me. I'll insult you, call you names and say nasty things about your family if you don't agree with me 100%. That will never change. Yep, no one expects you too. Your not smart enough to change. -- Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution. |
Fuzzy Math
On 8/6/11 5:46 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 06/08/2011 7:05 AM, X-Man wrote: In , says... wrote in message ... On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote: In other words : Fuzzy math. Well, I guess it is, but it's not any more misleading that it always has been. So, I guess I'd say the new fuzzy math is the same as the old fuzzy math. (Seems like there's a rock tune along the same lines, but I can't recall which one.) --------------------------------------------------- I'll see if I can get one of the Bob Dylan wannbies at my shop to write something. :-) BTW ... thanks for your reasoned and well presented rebuttals to my recent opinions posted here. Goes to prove that rec.boats participants can still carry on a civil discussion, even if they disagree. Eisboch Unlike me. I'll insult you, call you names and say nasty things about your family if you don't agree with me 100%. That will never change. Yep, no one expects you too. Your not smart enough to change. Yup...you're even dumber than I thought. |
Fuzzy Math
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote: So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for. nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's measured and so is he ---------------------------------------------------------- I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question? Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is dishonest and totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is near 20%. That's scary. Eisboch (not so dumb after all) |
Fuzzy Math
On 8/7/11 3:08 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote: So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for. nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's measured and so is he ---------------------------------------------------------- I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question? Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is dishonest and totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is near 20%. That's scary. Eisboch (not so dumb after all) It's been that way for a long, long time (not counting those not looking) |
Fuzzy Math
In article ,
says... "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote: So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for. nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's measured and so is he ---------------------------------------------------------- I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question? Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is dishonest and totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is near 20%. That's scary. Eisboch (not so dumb after all) The problem is if you're not looking, you're not looking. That makes you "retired" from the work force. Then what happens is when hiring increases, the "unemployment" rate often rises due to people who get back in the game and start looking again. I agree it's a stupid way of getting to the unemployment rate. Good for the pols only - they can easiily make the numbers look better than they are. But since those books have been cooked for years they aren't fooling anybody. A general rule is just double the number. Maybe food stamp use, about 20% of the population now, is a close match with the "real" unemployment rate. Bob cracks me up. 20% of the nation is on food stamps, and he's pulling in about +150k but whining about it. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/surge...stamps-united- states/story?id=14231657 The U.S. is spending about $70 billion a year in food stamps. |
Fuzzy Math
On Sun, 7 Aug 2011 16:07:09 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote: So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for. nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's measured and so is he ---------------------------------------------------------- I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question? Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is dishonest and totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is near 20%. That's scary. Eisboch (not so dumb after all) The problem is if you're not looking, you're not looking. That makes you "retired" from the work force. Then what happens is when hiring increases, the "unemployment" rate often rises due to people who get back in the game and start looking again. I agree it's a stupid way of getting to the unemployment rate. Good for the pols only - they can easiily make the numbers look better than they are. But since those books have been cooked for years they aren't fooling anybody. A general rule is just double the number. Maybe food stamp use, about 20% of the population now, is a close match with the "real" unemployment rate. Bob cracks me up. 20% of the nation is on food stamps, and he's pulling in about +150k but whining about it. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/surge...stamps-united- states/story?id=14231657 The U.S. is spending about $70 billion a year in food stamps. The trend in food stamps is definitely up, mainly due to the sustained unemployment. http://www.leftandrightnews.com/2011...ipation-soars/ Of course, the Republicans don't actually give a damn about the poor... http://www.economist.com/node/18958475 |
Fuzzy Math
On Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:08:22 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote: So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for. nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's measured and so is he ---------------------------------------------------------- I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question? no. you're stupid because you expect the metrology to change so that bush looks better and the black president looks worse Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is dishonest and totally misleading to the public maybe so. but obama didnt change the method of measurement. |
Fuzzy Math
On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 19:26:16 -0400, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:08:22 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote: So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for. nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's measured and so is he ---------------------------------------------------------- I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question? no. you're stupid because you expect the metrology to change so that bush looks better and the black president looks worse Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is dishonest and totally misleading to the public maybe so. but obama didnt change the method of measurement. Well, I think there are stupid people here, along with racist/fascist ones. But, I don't think Eisboch is one, at least I don't see any direct evidence of it. He's certainly nowhere near the level of crazy/stupid of some (that sounds like I'm saying he is crazy/stupid on some level, but I couldn't figure out how to phrase it properly). :-) I believe there are rational people on the right (not on the far right, however, or even the extreme left - like Earth Firsters who are off the deep end). A conversation/debate is possible in that situation. As long as both sides recognize that there are facts and made up facts, then it's possible. The extremes on both sides tend to promote or invoke violence or hatred to "prove" something or to "solve" something. That's just wrong in a civil society. I'm not equating the two extremes. The right is far more likely to do nasty things, but there is a left element that exists. To deny that would be irrational. It's pretty easy to make a factual error. Maddow's recent one about Limbaugh. The issue is whether or not one is willing to be corrected and to admit the error. It's hard to argue that Maddow doesn't have a left-leaning agenda, but it's also impossible for a rational person to think that Limbaugh has anything but his own self-interest in mind, and he's willing to lie and/or distort the truth to support himself. He would never admit a factual error. Sorry for the rant. :D |
Fuzzy Math
On 8/7/2011 3:08 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote: So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for. nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's measured and so is he ---------------------------------------------------------- I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question? Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is dishonest and totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is near 20%. That's scary. Eisboch (not so dumb after all) Yes, this was the same dolt who some time ago claimed Germany had significantly less than 20% unemployment. Same deceptive math, but they want to believe what the want to believe. |
Fuzzy Math
In article ,
says... On 8/7/2011 3:08 PM, Eisboch wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote: So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for. nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's measured and so is he ---------------------------------------------------------- I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question? Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is dishonest and totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is near 20%. That's scary. Eisboch (not so dumb after all) Yes, this was the same dolt who some time ago claimed Germany had significantly less than 20% unemployment. He's only a dolt because he talks with the nuts, insults almost everybody he speaks to, and repeats the same things over and over. Otherwise, he's usually right. German unemployment is about 6%. Anybody can find that with a few key clicks. Same deceptive math, but they want to believe what the want to believe. Here's some more economic facts. There's a whole bunch countries with an AAA credit rating. Austrailia Austria Canada Denmark Finland France Germany Guernsey Hong Kong Isle of Man Liechtenstein Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Singapore Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Many people in the U.S.A. call those countries "socialist" because they all have universal health care and old age pensions. Seems crazy to them. The U.S.A. has an AA rating and no universal health care. Second class compared to the countries on the above list. The U.S.A. does have food stamps. About 20% of Americans qualify for and use food stamps. You can't buy beer with food stamps, so personally I don't want to ever depend on food stamps. Even if I had beer money on the side. Food stamps are second class "money." Many people living in the countries with AAA ratings have trouble understanding why 20% of the people in the U.S.A. are on food stamps, with which they can't buy beer. Seems crazy to them. You can decide for yourself who's crazy. |
Fuzzy Math
On 08/08/2011 9:45 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In , says... On 8/7/2011 3:08 PM, Eisboch wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote: So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for. nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's measured and so is he ---------------------------------------------------------- I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question? Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is dishonest and totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is near 20%. That's scary. Eisboch (not so dumb after all) Yes, this was the same dolt who some time ago claimed Germany had significantly less than 20% unemployment. He's only a dolt because he talks with the nuts, insults almost everybody he speaks to, and repeats the same things over and over. Otherwise, he's usually right. German unemployment is about 6%. Anybody can find that with a few key clicks. Same deceptive math, but they want to believe what the want to believe. Here's some more economic facts. There's a whole bunch countries with an AAA credit rating. Austrailia Austria Canada Denmark Finland France Germany Guernsey Hong Kong Isle of Man Liechtenstein Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Singapore Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Many people in the U.S.A. call those countries "socialist" because they all have universal health care and old age pensions. Seems crazy to them. The U.S.A. has an AA rating and no universal health care. Second class compared to the countries on the above list. The U.S.A. does have food stamps. About 20% of Americans qualify for and use food stamps. You can't buy beer with food stamps, so personally I don't want to ever depend on food stamps. Even if I had beer money on the side. Food stamps are second class "money." Many people living in the countries with AAA ratings have trouble understanding why 20% of the people in the U.S.A. are on food stamps, with which they can't buy beer. Seems crazy to them. You can decide for yourself who's crazy. Rating agencies are bull****. USA should have lost triple A 3 years ago. I never understood why China was rated so low. Only $1.55 trillion in civic, provincial and federal debt combined. And offset that they have lent others more money than tat which makes China in a positive balance. But then these were US companies doing the ratings. And we know liberal media downplays that everyone but Moody downgraded USA, it wasn't just S&P. No doubt in a US treasury you will gt your money back, the real question is will it be worth as much. And that later prt has a certain risk that assures it will not be worth as much. -- Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution. |
Fuzzy Math
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:45:02 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... On 8/7/2011 3:08 PM, Eisboch wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote: So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for. nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's measured and so is he ---------------------------------------------------------- I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question? Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is dishonest and totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is near 20%. That's scary. Eisboch (not so dumb after all) Yes, this was the same dolt who some time ago claimed Germany had significantly less than 20% unemployment. He's only a dolt because he talks with the nuts, insults almost everybody he speaks to, and repeats the same things over and over. Otherwise, he's usually right. German unemployment is about 6%. Anybody can find that with a few key clicks. Same deceptive math, but they want to believe what the want to believe. Here's some more economic facts. There's a whole bunch countries with an AAA credit rating. Austrailia Austria Canada Denmark Finland France Germany Guernsey Hong Kong Isle of Man Liechtenstein Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Singapore Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Many people in the U.S.A. call those countries "socialist" because they all have universal health care and old age pensions. Seems crazy to them. The U.S.A. has an AA rating and no universal health care. Second class compared to the countries on the above list. The U.S.A. does have food stamps. About 20% of Americans qualify for and use food stamps. You can't buy beer with food stamps, so personally I don't want to ever depend on food stamps. Even if I had beer money on the side. Food stamps are second class "money." Many people living in the countries with AAA ratings have trouble understanding why 20% of the people in the U.S.A. are on food stamps, with which they can't buy beer. Seems crazy to them. You can decide for yourself who's crazy. Actually, the US still has AAA from the two others, and S&P has had all sorts of problems lately, not to mention their $2T error. The problem with the other AAA rated countries is that they don't have the financial depth to be the backstop currency. The US does and will remain the currency of last resort for the foreseeable future. |
Fuzzy Math
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:23:37 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 08/08/2011 9:45 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On 8/7/2011 3:08 PM, Eisboch wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote: So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for. nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's measured and so is he ---------------------------------------------------------- I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question? Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is dishonest and totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is near 20%. That's scary. Eisboch (not so dumb after all) Yes, this was the same dolt who some time ago claimed Germany had significantly less than 20% unemployment. He's only a dolt because he talks with the nuts, insults almost everybody he speaks to, and repeats the same things over and over. Otherwise, he's usually right. German unemployment is about 6%. Anybody can find that with a few key clicks. Same deceptive math, but they want to believe what the want to believe. Here's some more economic facts. There's a whole bunch countries with an AAA credit rating. Austrailia Austria Canada Denmark Finland France Germany Guernsey Hong Kong Isle of Man Liechtenstein Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Singapore Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Many people in the U.S.A. call those countries "socialist" because they all have universal health care and old age pensions. Seems crazy to them. The U.S.A. has an AA rating and no universal health care. Second class compared to the countries on the above list. The U.S.A. does have food stamps. About 20% of Americans qualify for and use food stamps. You can't buy beer with food stamps, so personally I don't want to ever depend on food stamps. Even if I had beer money on the side. Food stamps are second class "money." Many people living in the countries with AAA ratings have trouble understanding why 20% of the people in the U.S.A. are on food stamps, with which they can't buy beer. Seems crazy to them. You can decide for yourself who's crazy. Rating agencies are bull****. USA should have lost triple A 3 years ago. I never understood why China was rated so low. Only $1.55 trillion in civic, provincial and federal debt combined. And offset that they have lent others more money than tat which makes China in a positive balance. But then these were US companies doing the ratings. And we know liberal media downplays that everyone but Moody downgraded USA, it wasn't just S&P. No doubt in a US treasury you will gt your money back, the real question is will it be worth as much. And that later prt has a certain risk that assures it will not be worth as much. "I never understood...." Yes, we get that you never, don't, and will never understand. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:27 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com