Feel free to go down the rabbit hole of analysis all you want.
50% of the economy is between our ears.
As I said in the post, they are for CONTEXT! Of course they do not answer the deep underlying issues of why each and every person in this country who is having a hard time in this cycle is having said hard time.
My objective was to show that in fact it is not nearly as bad as the media trumpets it all out to be.
And for the record, the media trumpets it all this way because the whole "FEAR, DREAD, SCARE" sells copy.
Again, take it at face value and stop trying to make something out of nothing.
While I know you consider this a Bear wins or TNT wins concept, I don't think it is and I really don't care how it "wins". Here is why. Both in my PhD work [which seems to never end] and my wife's PhD work [which apparently is moving along swimmingly] we both deal with data integrity and data research analysis verification and substantiation.
What this means is that there is a whole bunch of stuff on the internet that simply is either not true, not vetted, not accurate or intentionally misleading in order to make a political point. Oft times when I beat the drum to quit looking at the blogsphere and talk radio sources it is not because I don't like your answers, it is because the data is skewed or intentionally parsed in order to make a point. [you will note I don't EVERY post from places like Olbermann, move-on, huff-post or any other left sourced blogs for the very same reasons].
One of the hardest things in any research to do is to be able to glean what is accurate, honest data and what is not. It takes experience and it takes time and it takes looking at a wide breadth of information from disparate sources.
The Ramsey information is one example. Some is accurate, some is blatantly incorrect. You can't very well say "the facts speak for themselves" when not all are facts.
Regarding the "Subprime Meltdown Explained..." It is just incorrect. It takes a 2007 report of 2005-6 data and tries to fit a square peg into a round hole. If a person doesn't have a very good grasp of macroeconomics it looks pretty good but if they do, the holes are every where. Again, it is a matter of knowing that, just because it is on a web site and written down does not make it correct. [that is why I tend to use the numbers provided by federal sources, they are boring but provide the best perspective]
[What this means is that there is a whole bunch of stuff on the internet that simply is either not true, not vetted, not accurate or intentionally misleading in order to make a political point.
The Ramsey information is one example. Some is accurate, some is blatantly incorrect. You can't very well say "the facts speak for themselves" when not all are facts.]
Hear, hear. And they all exploit the fact that they will find a forum (useful silly geese sounded to harsh) who would listen and parrot.
This goes for both sides of the fence, the only virgins are in diapers (not geriatric).
While I know you consider this a Bear wins or TNT wins concept, I don't think it is and I really don't care how it "wins". Here is why. Both in my PhD work [which seems to never end] and my wife's PhD work [which apparently is moving along swimmingly] we both deal with data integrity and data research analysis verification and substantiation.
What this means is that there is a whole bunch of stuff on the internet that simply is either not true, not vetted, not accurate or intentionally misleading in order to make a political point. Oft times when I beat the drum to quit looking at the blogsphere and talk radio sources it is not because I don't like your answers, it is because the data is skewed or intentionally parsed in order to make a point. [you will note I don't EVERY post from places like Olbermann, move-on, huff-post or any other left sourced blogs for the very same reasons].
One of the hardest things in any research to do is to be able to glean what is accurate, honest data and what is not. It takes experience and it takes time and it takes looking at a wide breadth of information from disparate sources.
The Ramsey information is one example. Some is accurate, some is blatantly incorrect. You can't very well say "the facts speak for themselves" when not all are facts.
Regarding the "Subprime Meltdown Explained..." It is just incorrect. It takes a 2007 report of 2005-6 data and tries to fit a square peg into a round hole. If a person doesn't have a very good grasp of macroeconomics it looks pretty good but if they do, the holes are every where. Again, it is a matter of knowing that, just because it is on a web site and written down does not make it correct. [that is why I tend to use the numbers provided by federal sources, they are boring but provide the best perspective]
So please point out for us what facts of Ramsey's are wrong?
Also please show where the Subprime Meltdown Information is incorrect. And as to using Federal numbers...a lot of them are fairly accurate, but I always have this gnawing feeling that asks how they got the numbers.
For example McBear, would you please explain to us how they can tell us what the unemployment rate is? I don't get a phone call from the Government every week asking "Are you employed?"
So how do they find such information? Hmmm?
__________________ Who's John Galt.
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 2
So please point out for us what facts of Ramsey's are wrong?
Also please show where the Subprime Meltdown Information is incorrect. And as to using Federal numbers...a lot of them are fairly accurate, but I always have this gnawing feeling that asks how they got the numbers.
For example McBear, would you please explain to us how they can tell us what the unemployment rate is? I don't get a phone call from the Government every week asking "Are you employed?"
So how do they find such information? Hmmm?
First, I have already explained [and repeatedly posted Dept of Commerce data] the Subprime meltdown issue that you posted up. You choose not to believe the differences, that is your decision.
Regarding Ramsey, I showed you where he mixes statistics, moving from total sold homes to "repossessed" but not counting all other forms of mortgage failures that result in lost homes [as provided on the OCC link] See post 4
As for unemployment, it is calculated several ways, some of which are somewhat flawed. EMPLOYMENT is based on the number of JOBS that have paperwork/taxes/ssi turned in weekly/monthly. So while YOU don't get a phone call every week, your employer sends paperwork in with your SSN on it that says that you are working. That provides the base for the 154Million. There is also the extrapolated number of selfemployed people who pay taxes quarterly so they are included in the employment number based on that quarterly number.
Now, the UNEMPLOYMENT number is a different animal. It ONLY counts those who are ACTIVELY drawing Unemployment Benefits from a government agency. EXAMPLE: If you are fired for spending too much time on BWOT you can claim UI. You will be able to get up to 26 weeks if you can't find a job. During that 26 weeks you are counted as one of America's UNEMPLOYED. Now, during this recession where jobs are more scarce, there are extensions, so you may qualify for another 26 weeks of UI benefits. Again you will be counted as one of America's Unemployed. After that, if you still don't have a job, you no longer count in the UNEMPLOYED ranks, nor do you count in the EMPLOYED ranks. There are, at this time about 12 Million that fall into that category of people who want to work but can't find work but have burned through their benefits. [this does NOT include folks who just don't want to work and want to collect food stamps and live in Government housing, a rather small subset of folks].
So the Government finds the information by tracking payroll information on your SSN. If you want to pad up your SS account to where you have more in the account as you age, give the number to a bunch of different illegal aliens. The system doesn't know how to sort multiple inputs.
I might throw in my 2 cents here on the unemployment figures.
They are skewed, but it is the only indicator statistically we have.
There are factors which entered into it when I lived in Detroit metro area during the ~82 recession (and there it was a depression).
The unemployment figures were the first indicator, and at that time (if I recall right) the unemployment rate went over 20%. This didn't include those who ran off benefits, and the number was assumed to be well over 40%. There were bumper stickers at that time "Last one out of Michigan, please turn off the lights".
Auto workers were able thru UAW bennies to bring in ~90% of their pay for nearly 2 years. I believe Teamsters have a similar thing going as well as other unions. This is NOT an incentive to rush out and find work, however many I knew were doing just that, but through under the table methods so as to not interfere with their bennies and income. Some were making out better on or off the unemployment rolls.
Yet others in side companies to the auto companies (suppliers) didn't have these options.
Still , we only have unemployment indicators as a general view, and for the most part you can as a rule take the unemployment number and nearly double it to get a semi accurate figure.
So if we are at 8% now it is probably nearer to 14%, which means 86% are still working in one capacity or another. Sorta a "Glass 1/2 Full" approach.
Out of that 14%. How many just won't or can't work. I will go out on a limb and say 4%. Of those some are on the government dole (like Soc Sec, disability or other) . Now were at 90%. Next (and I don't know the answer here) do retirees enter into these figures?
OK, Call me an optimist. Things are rough, but I look forward, not back.
I might throw in my 2 cents here on the unemployment figures.
They are skewed, but it is the only indicator statistically we have.
There are factors which entered into it when I lived in Detroit metro area during the ~82 recession (and there it was a depression).
The unemployment figures were the first indicator, and at that time (if I recall right) the unemployment rate went over 20%. This didn't include those who ran off benefits, and the number was assumed to be well over 40%. There were bumper stickers at that time "Last one out of Michigan, please turn off the lights".
Auto workers were able thru UAW bennies to bring in ~90% of their pay for nearly 2 years. I believe Teamsters have a similar thing going as well as other unions. This is NOT an incentive to rush out and find work, however many I knew were doing just that, but through under the table methods so as to not interfere with their bennies and income. Some were making out better on or off the unemployment rolls.
Yet others in side companies to the auto companies (suppliers) didn't have these options.
Still , we only have unemployment indicators as a general view, and for the most part you can as a rule take the unemployment number and nearly double it to get a semi accurate figure.
So if we are at 8% now it is probably nearer to 14%, which means 86% are still working in one capacity or another. Sorta a "Glass 1/2 Full" approach.
Out of that 14%. How many just won't or can't work. I will go out on a limb and say 4%. Of those some are on the government dole (like Soc Sec, disability or other) . Now were at 90%. Next (and I don't know the answer here) do retirees enter into these figures?
OK, Call me an optimist. Things are rough, but I look forward, not back.
Aardvark
You need to go to the BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics web site.] They explain all of the statistics gathering methodology. As an example those on SS disability, retired, under aged or over aged [67] are NOT listed on the calculated scales. Employed numbers are based on actuals and Workforce numbers are based on total population LESS disabled, retired, under-aged, over-aged, housewife [as listed on tax returns], etc. That total POTENTIAL workforce is 196Million out of 305Million with 154.048Million currently employed.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
