PDA

View Full Version : The regime given us a flatlined 10% UE rate.



LWW
02-13-2011, 09:25 AM
Welcome to Obamaville. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx)

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-13-2011, 03:09 PM
There is a reason that UE is stated in 'seasonally adjusted' terms (people can't work so easily outside, and in the worst weather, people can't get to inside jobs as much). Since Gallup is NOT stating them in seasonally adjusted terms, this is NOT how UE is accurately stated, or at least, you cannot compare this measure without unseasonally readjusting the averages to which it's compared.

LWW
02-14-2011, 02:51 AM
The points here are that:

1 - The UE rate has been frozen at 10% by the regime's war on prosperity.

2 - You will defend the regime no matter what.

Point #1 surprised even me a little ... point #2 has become a given.

LWW

pooltchr
02-14-2011, 07:25 AM
Do you remember them saying that we would have to adjust to the "new normal"? I think Obama is just providing more of what he promised. If he can keep UE at 10% for his entire term, perhaps this is actually becoming normal.

More of that "hope and change".

Steve

Soflasnapper
02-14-2011, 12:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The points here are that:

1 - The UE rate has been frozen at 10% by the regime's war on prosperity.

2 - You will defend the regime no matter what.

Point #1 surprised even me a little ... point #2 has become a given.

LWW </div></div>

I am not defending the regime, but rather defending DEFINITIONS. Too often, some new definition is proposed and we are told that IT is really how things are.

For example, some people evidently only NOW understand that there are many 'unemployment rates' measured and reported out by the government. We ALWAYS used the U-2 rate as the stated rate, even though there have ALWAYS been (or at least, for a long time), other unemployment numbers, at least up to a U-6 (and the higher the U-#, the higher the stated unemployment rate becomes).

So NOW, people cite the U-6 rate as the REAL rate, when they never did before, as if using the U-2 rate was a nefarious and new method of understating unemployment, which this guy uniquely came up with only as a method of misstating the fact.

Or Rasmussen's novel citation of 'strongly approve' and 'strongly disapprove' numbers in polls, which are then used to state NOBODY ever had such lopsided ratios of those 'strongly' approve/disapprove ratio. THAT'S BECAUSE NOBODY BEFORE RASUMUSSEN EVER USED THIS TECHNIQUE, or considered it important. Always before, and therefore the gold standard by which presidents in our era can be compared to their predecessors on the job approval polling record, is simply the 'approve/disapprove' number (typically using Gallup's findings, since they have a 40 year plus record of publishing that number).

Whereas Gallup is the gold standard for 'approve/disapprove' polling numbers, they are NOT the gold standard for measuring unemployment. And in fact, they readily admit that what they measure is NOT comparable to how unemployment numbers are measured and reported (it's in the fine print disclaimer accompanying their report).

Whenever I or others point out that these kinds of novel measurements are non-standard, a kind of special pleading to use a different definition than we've always (and currently still) used/use, that statement alone is thought to be special pleading itself, as a defense for not wanting (true) worse numbers to be thought true.

But that isn't the case. It's instead an effort to point out that when you compare apples to oranges, you get a funny result that doesn't mean what you think or claim it means. It's pointing out that the worse numbers are NOT true, if they are meant to prove the point that the normal way the numbers are put out is false.

LWW
02-14-2011, 05:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The points here are that:

1 - The UE rate has been frozen at 10% by the regime's war on prosperity.

2 - You will defend the regime no matter what.

Point #1 surprised even me a little ... point #2 has become a given.

LWW </div></div>

I am not defending the regime, but rather defending DEFINITIONS. Too often, some new definition is proposed and we are told that IT is really how things are.</div></div>

Yes you are.

My comment was that the 10% rate is astonishingly consistent ... even though the regime has repeatedly claimed it was at a sub 10% rate.

Seasonally adjusted is just Barbara Streisand when every season comes in below the actual rate.

What I particularly love is that the far left on this forum has always adored Gallup and scoffed at Rasmussen even though R has a much greater accuracy history.

Now that the G poll disagrees with the regime the left denies the G poll and accepts the regimes cooked numbers without qualm nor trepidation.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-14-2011, 05:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ]I am not defending the regime, but rather defending DEFINITIONS. Too often, some new definition is proposed and we are told that IT is really how things are.[/quote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Yes you are.</div></div>

No, I'm NOT, unless you think it is some kind of great defense to say, NO, it has consistently been in the 9%s. 9%, 10%, either way, these are bad numbers, and slightly less bad is not good.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My comment was that the 10% rate is astonishingly consistent ... even though the regime has repeatedly claimed it was at a sub 10% rate.

Seasonally adjusted is just Barbara Streisand when every season comes in below the actual rate.</div></div>

Acknowledged different methodologies yield different results. This is not surprising.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I particularly love is that the far left on this forum has always adored Gallup and scoffed at Rasmussen even though R has a much greater accuracy history.

Now that the G poll disagrees with the regime the left denies the G poll and accepts the regimes cooked numbers without qualm nor trepidation.

LWW </div></div>

Scott Rasmussen pads all the numbers by 4 to 5% toward the GOP candidates UNTIL close to the end of the race. Closer to the end, it wouldn't do to be so obviously inaccurate, so he cleans up his sample-skewing tricks so as to be less obviously a biased partisan pollster. And sometimes, just as with the right's former favorite pollster John Zogby, his FINAL numbers are indeed the most accurate. But in the MEANTIME, during the body of the campaign until the end, Rasmussen is always an outlier result that few pollsters find when they look, using more standard sampling methods.

Gallup is FINE as a POLLING ORGANIZATION. But we do not measure and report unemployment with polls. Polling here in Florida, Gallup would find the unemployment figure is about 12.6%, but that is NOT the national rate.

LWW
02-15-2011, 12:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scott Rasmussen pads all the numbers by 4 to 5% toward the GOP candidates UNTIL close to the end of the race. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you make a claim, you post a link.

Q </div></div>

What's that?

You don't have one?

In fact their methodology suggests the exact opposite is true?

I already knew that.

LWW

LWW
02-15-2011, 12:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gallup is FINE as a POLLING ORGANIZATION. </div></div>

Gallup's methodology shows that they do exactly what you accuse R of doing.

They select a result they desire and then load the poll to get that result.

I have exposed that here several times, how they over sample democrooks and minorities and use all respondents as opposed to likely voters.

The left generally loves them because they produce the lie they want to hear.

What you should have said was that Gallup used to be a fine organization.

LWW

LWW
02-15-2011, 12:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Polling here in Florida, Gallup would find the unemployment figure is about 12.6%, but that is NOT the national rate. </div></div>

And this defense is just precious.

The reason the regime can claim lowering UE is that it is adjusting the universe of jobs available and it isn't counting people whose UE benefits have expired as being unemployed any longer.

In reality, if you read Gallup's methodology ... which we both know you obviously didn't ... it is slanted to give a rosier than reality number, yet it still can't match the regimes' version of "TRUTH."

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gallup's U.S. employment measures report the percentage of U.S. adults in the workforce, ages 18 and older, who are underemployed and unemployed, without seasonal adjustment. "Underemployed" respondents are employed part time, but want to work full time, or they are unemployed. "Unemployed" respondents are those within the underemployed group who are not employed, even for one hour a week, but are available and looking for work. Results for each 30-day rolling average are based on telephone interviews with approximately 30,000 adults. Because results are not seasonally adjusted, they are not directly comparable to numbers reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which are based on workers 16 and older. Margin of error is 0.7 percentage points. </div></div>

LWW