US Economy 2007 Q2 - Page 6 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #51 of 123 (permalink) Old 08-09-2007, 05:21 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Auk! Auk!) Anyone catch that? I thought I heard something...

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #52 of 123 (permalink) Old 08-09-2007, 05:22 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk
Jim Cramer is certifiably NUTS! I can't believe you are hanging your whole Chicken Little life on him!!! You are more desperate than I had imagined...
If you look at what I have posted for the past 24 months on the subject, and then note that Cramer only brought it up last Friday, you might be able to connect the two dots that I am not hanging my theories on anyone.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #53 of 123 (permalink) Old 08-09-2007, 06:54 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
You like to use percentages of gross, which is ok and what the BLS uses on some data but considering the growing population, it does not accurately reflect the real people involved as when you look at numbers like 7Million unemployed.

You use that when trying to discount the National Debt but reality is, it doesn't work in that reality either.
Accepting your number, 7M, as gospel.

http://www.bea.gov/regional/pdf/lapi2005/table_i.pdf

Total Employment, BLS 131,572,000
Plus:
Adjustment for misreporting of employment on tax returns 2,660,000
Private employment exempt from UI coverage1 3,859,000
Government employment exempt from UI coverage2 2,876,000
Equals: Wage and Salary Employment, BEA 140,967,000
7/140 = 5%

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thatís what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #54 of 123 (permalink) Old 08-09-2007, 08:54 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Accepting your number, 7M, as gospel.

http://www.bea.gov/regional/pdf/lapi2005/table_i.pdf

Total Employment, BLS 131,572,000
Plus:
Adjustment for misreporting of employment on tax returns 2,660,000
Private employment exempt from UI coverage1 3,859,000
Government employment exempt from UI coverage2 2,876,000
Equals: Wage and Salary Employment, BEA 140,967,000
7/140 = 5%

B
Not my number, Dept of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics number, per the link I posted.

Remember TWO important things.

1. The UNEmployment number does NOT count anyone who was laid off, fired, early retired or otherwise removed from their jobs that has completed their benefits, BLS number only reflects ACTIVE UI Recipients. Last year the number of rolled off Unemployed equaled that of those ON the rolls.*

2. The Total Employment number DOES count the number of Illegal Aliens that use fake or duplicate SSNs when they fill out their W4 forms. The Dept of Labor estimate of that number WAS 10-12 Million last year.*

So, it is not possible to get an accurate reflection of an unemployment percentage based on two numbers that each have extreme variables attached to them. While the % calculation has always been made this way, the variables of EXTENDED Unemployment and Massive Illegal Aliens exacerbate the already "qualified" number.

* Forbes, April 2006

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #55 of 123 (permalink) Old 08-10-2007, 06:50 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
Not my number, Dept of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics number, per the link I posted.

Remember TWO important things.

1. The UNEmployment number does NOT count anyone who was laid off, fired, early retired or otherwise removed from their jobs that has completed their benefits, BLS number only reflects ACTIVE UI Recipients. Last year the number of rolled off Unemployed equaled that of those ON the rolls.*

2. The Total Employment number DOES count the number of Illegal Aliens that use fake or duplicate SSNs when they fill out their W4 forms. The Dept of Labor estimate of that number WAS 10-12 Million last year.*

So, it is not possible to get an accurate reflection of an unemployment percentage based on two numbers that each have extreme variables attached to them. While the % calculation has always been made this way, the variables of EXTENDED Unemployment and Massive Illegal Aliens exacerbate the already "qualified" number.

* Forbes, April 2006
How many people are in #1?

Do the illegals of #2 apply for unemployment benefits as well as contribute to employment stats? How much?

The accuracy of the numbers depends on the accuracy of the constituent parts. Unless we know the degree to which the constituent parts contribute to the whole, we are left with a faith-based statement as to whether or not the values are accurate and useful.

Since folks have been using these numbers for several decades (with occasional modifications) and all manner of analysts and theoreticians and policy makers have used them over the decades, we can assume that either countless analyses, theories and policies are ill-founded or that the numbers are useful, regardless of the inaccuracies you allege.

Reflecting on it a moment, and looking at the wrong-headed, dumbfucking public policies aimed at employment and other statist social welfare programs that are sucking the life out of this formerly free nation, I am more open to your criticism of that measure.

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thatís what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #56 of 123 (permalink) Old 08-10-2007, 09:43 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
If you look at what I have posted for the past 24 months on the subject, and then note that Cramer only brought it up last Friday, you might be able to connect the two dots that I am not hanging my theories on anyone.
Oh! Did I forget to mention that you are certifiably nuts too. Those two dots must represent the brains of you and Jimbo...

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #57 of 123 (permalink) Old 08-10-2007, 11:16 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
How many people are in #1?

Do the illegals of #2 apply for unemployment benefits as well as contribute to employment stats? How much?

The accuracy of the numbers depends on the accuracy of the constituent parts. Unless we know the degree to which the constituent parts contribute to the whole, we are left with a faith-based statement as to whether or not the values are accurate and useful.

Since folks have been using these numbers for several decades (with occasional modifications) and all manner of analysts and theoreticians and policy makers have used them over the decades, we can assume that either countless analyses, theories and policies are ill-founded or that the numbers are useful, regardless of the inaccuracies you allege.

Reflecting on it a moment, and looking at the wrong-headed, dumbfucking public policies aimed at employment and other statist social welfare programs that are sucking the life out of this formerly free nation, I am more open to your criticism of that measure.
ReRead post 54 for your answers. And yes, there has been a shift in counting with the new Illegal issue. No they aren't suppose to get unemployment so they would not be counted in #1 but you know that.

I think the numbers used to be a useful guide to reflect both unemployment and true employment. That was when this country had closer to "full employment" and you had less folks that dropped out of the system completely after being fired/laid off/early retired/etc. Now, I don't think the number is an accurate reflection of reality.

Same with the employment number. It counts number of W4 payments into the system on a given month, not reflecting how many of those are stolen or made up SSN for Illegal Alien employment. That number is well over 10M which further skews the total charts and ratios.

Just my .0367 cents.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #58 of 123 (permalink) Old 08-10-2007, 11:18 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk
Oh! Did I forget to mention that you are certifiably nuts too. Those two dots must represent the brains of you and Jimbo...
I have only seen the guy a few times and don't like his style [nor his ethics - touting a stock he has interest in] but his FED comments last friday were dead on.

And the FED proved his advise just an hour ago by dumping $35B into the system to prop up the market.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #59 of 123 (permalink) Old 08-10-2007, 11:32 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
I have only seen the guy a few times and don't like his style [nor his ethics - touting a stock he has interest in] but his FED comments last friday were dead on.

And the FED proved his advise just an hour ago by dumping $35B into the system to prop up the market.
You're an opportunist bear! You'd cite the devil herself if she said something resembling what you think is true...

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #60 of 123 (permalink) Old 08-10-2007, 12:27 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
ReRead post 54 for your answers. And yes, there has been a shift in counting with the new Illegal issue. No they aren't suppose to get unemployment so they would not be counted in #1 but you know that.

I think the numbers used to be a useful guide to reflect both unemployment and true employment. That was when this country had closer to "full employment" and you had less folks that dropped out of the system completely after being fired/laid off/early retired/etc. Now, I don't think the number is an accurate reflection of reality.

Same with the employment number. It counts number of W4 payments into the system on a given month, not reflecting how many of those are stolen or made up SSN for Illegal Alien employment. That number is well over 10M which further skews the total charts and ratios.

Just my .0367 cents.
I didn't make myself clear.

What i was trying to say is that if there is no way to count some sort of the composite number (people illegally drawing unemployment benefits, people illegally working, people dropped from employment or unemployment roles for a variety of uncounted reasons) then there is probably not an accurate way of estimating their contribution to the composite number.

We are left with conjecture and opinion in lieu of data.

I suspect that this is not a new phenomenon.

If it is not new, and if analysts, theoreticians and policy-makers use it despite the contribution of flaws (whose magnitude is not known definitively) then the chances are that the analysts, theoreticians, and policy-makers have a long history of being (is there a delicate way of phrasing this?) WRONG, to an unknown degree.

OR, it could be that the analysts, theoreticians, and policy-makers are aware of the flaw and have chosen to discount it, for whatever reason.

What reasons are possible?
They don't give a damned and cook the books to fit their preconceptions;
They don't give a damned and devise unrealistic outcomes based on flawed data;
They do give a damned and assume that the degree of influence from the unkonw sources is negligible compared to the problem that they are working with.

My bet is that all 3 are in play, to some degree. Also unknown.

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thatís what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    2007 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG Vs. 2007 Audi S6 Vs. 2007 BMW M5 everythingmercedes W211 E55 AMG, E63 AMG 3 03-09-2009 09:53 PM
    C230 2006 vs 2007 Fuel Economy ??? 06SLK55 W203 C-Class 12 06-03-2007 06:23 PM
    2007 New York Auto Show......2007 World Car of the Year Winners Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 5 04-07-2007 10:52 AM
    2007 US Economy GP2GP Off-Topic 13 01-13-2007 07:18 PM
    2007 ML350 fuel economy 17/21 MPG in California Wolfgang W164 M-Class 12 12-08-2006 10:31 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome