Job Growth

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Dude you are lying about what i said, you're crying to other people that i was mean to you, and you're ignoring the points raised with desperation and trying to distract. 

It's quite obvious you're not calm

And you lied. You knowingly claimed i said something i didn't. That is fact  it's right there to see. 

And it's not a simple matter of math, and we both know it.  Gov'ts can manipulate the math and do all the time. It's not hard. 

Like i said -  a modest correction is pretty normal. There was nothing 'normal' about this one and it happened to come at a time when the dems desperately needed 'positive' news, and you pretending that gov'ts never "influence" the numbers in estimates etc or about the economy just speaks of a fevered desperation. 

 

Wow... more personal attacks and drama. Well, I am out of patience. Have a good night. 

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Wow... more personal attacks and drama.

Wow, more denial and dishonesty, 

Quote

Well, I am out of patience. Have a good night. 

In other words you're angry you were caught lying and couldn't defend your democrats, and you're going to take your ball and go home in shame. 

Well. there you go. 

 

Oh  and if you want to pretend you're not emotional maybe don't storm out of the room in anger  

Edited August 24 by CdnFox

[Michael Hardner]

33 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

  Every February and April, we revise the past year based on new information. 

My old stats professor was an expert, and did seasonal adjustments for Stats Canada.  Not a conspiracy theory type guy at all.

There's no conspiracy in that.  Just computer programs.  

[impartialobserver]

On 8/23/2024 at 5:43 PM, Michael Hardner said:

My old stats professor was an expert, and did seasonal adjustments for Stats Canada.  Not a conspiracy theory type guy at all.

There's no conspiracy in that.  Just computer programs.  

The benchmarking process takes place in january and July of every year. I could supply a mountain of data to support this. I have been the primary person behind updating the labor market information database for nevada for 8 years... It is really not all that interesting. 

[CdnFox]

On 8/23/2024 at 5:43 PM, Michael Hardner said:

My old stats professor was an expert, and did seasonal adjustments for Stats Canada.  Not a conspiracy theory type guy at all.

 

Yeah.... you realize statscan isn't the american gov't right ?

And the canadian gov't "picks and chooses" it's stats and how they're released quite a bit.  Remember how the gov't said guaranteed the gov't statistics showed that people got more money back from the carbon tax!  OFFICIAL GOV"T FIGURE no less 

Till it turned out they had kind of made that up and hadn't told the WHOLE truth... and it wasn't true  

Also - you yourself are pretty sus at the best of times so we kind of have to wonder about your boss  

[impartialobserver]

if you want to know the true nuts and bolts of why benchmarking and revisions are done... the timing of the data does not coincide with nice neat calendar months. Unemployment insurance claims do not line up in perfect order, surveys can be untimely and inconclusive, and above all.. it is an estimate not a count. 

besides subtracting 818,000 jobs does not make Harris or Biden look good. How do downward revisions occur? First, UI claims appeals are finalized and if they are not in favor of the claimant.. it takes away from your jobs number (CES). Second, reports that should have been finalized on March 1 are actually not submitted until march 25 or so.. so therefore the unemployment data is incomplete. Because it is a model and therefore multiplicative (x*y).. if the y is rather large (nonfarm employment) and the x is adjusted even a bit.. the impacts we will large numerically. Simple math. 

Edited August 30 by impartialobserver

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

if you want to know the true nuts and bolts of why benchmarking and revisions are done... the timing of the data does not coincide with nice neat calendar months. Unemployment insurance claims do not line up in perfect order, surveys can be untimely and inconclusive, and above all.. it is an estimate not a count. 

Everybody understands this. You're not sharing any information that people don't already understand.

Here's what you don't understand. Because it's estimates and because of how it's reported and because of the government relationship with the reporting bodies it is not difficult to ensure that the numbers tend to reflect an "Upward optimism" rather than a "downward optimism" when it comes to the estimates. 

And this may come as a complete shock to you but governments are very interested in making sure that any reporting wherever possible produces a favorable rather than non favorable result.

The "estimate" In this case was wildly and unbelievably inaccurate in favor of the current government. Far outside the normal range of error. They literally thought there was double Employment there was with respect to the unemployment figures. Not a little over, not a moderate mistake, but a guess that was so wildly off that it's difficult to believe that it wasn't partially purposeful

But you want to play it off as people don't understand that it was an estimate.  Which makes you look like an absolute bullshit***er. You have to be seven different kinds of stupid to think that people don't understand that the problem here is that the estimate was off. They understand it

 

So why don't you quit shilling for the left and admit that these numbers are not just your average run of the mill error in estimate.  Because they arent. 

Edited August 30 by CdnFox

[Hodad]

24 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

if you want to know the true nuts and bolts of why benchmarking and revisions are done... the timing of the data does not coincide with nice neat calendar months. Unemployment insurance claims do not line up in perfect order, surveys can be untimely and inconclusive, and above all.. it is an estimate not a count. 

besides subtracting 818,000 jobs does not make Harris or Biden look good. How do downward revisions occur? First, UI claims appeals are finalized and if they are not in favor of the claimant.. it takes away from your jobs number (CES). Second, reports that should have been finalized on March 1 are actually not submitted until march 25 or so.. so therefore the unemployment data is incomplete. Because it is a model and therefore multiplicative (x*y).. if the y is rather large (nonfarm employment) and the x is adjusted even a bit.. the impacts we will large numerically. Simple math. 

Nope. The obvious answer is a conspiracy going back decades and across all economists. 🙄

Just like climate science and epidemiology. 

[impartialobserver]

13 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Nope. The obvious answer is a conspiracy going back decades and across all economists. 🙄

Just like climate science and epidemiology. 

yes, I know. Even though this has been done for the last 30 years with little complaint from a certain someone. And actually on a percentage basis, the upward revisions during the Trump were greater than in absolute terms than the .5% decline that made this thread happen. Shhh.. don't let the secret out. 

also,  It is somehow beneficial to Harris and Biden to have their jobs number decline. Explain that one to me.. 

last detail but they are a recurrent neural network model so if you change one variable in March.. it has a cascading effect for each month afterwards. 

Edited August 30 by impartialobserver

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

yes, I know. Even though this has been done for the last 30 years with little complaint from a certain someone. And actually on a percentage basis, the upward revisions during the Trump were greater than in absolute terms than the .5% decline that made this thread happen. Shhh.. don't let the secret out. 

also,  It is somehow beneficial to Harris and Biden to have their jobs number decline. Explain that one to me.. 

last detail but they are a recurrent neural network model so if you change one variable in March.. it has a cascading effect for each month afterwards. 

It's disappointing to see this level of dishonesty from you. You claim to be impartial and that none of that is that important to you, yet you're being extremely dishonest in your reply and pretending that the problem is something that isn't. You can't address any of the real points, and you pretend that people are talking about something completely different.

Nobody thinks this is a conspiracy going back centuries or anything along those lines. Nobody thinks that there's anything weird with having to make an adjustment later in the year.

Pretending that that's a problem just makes you look like a dishonest partisan liar. You know that's not the issue

[robosmith]

On 8/23/2024 at 5:01 PM, impartialobserver said:

And I thought you were reasonable and rational.. well, my bad. I know intimately how the numbers are produced.. you do not. Getting pretty worked up.. that says a lot about you. 

What EVER made you believe that CdnLIAR was reasonable or rational?

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, robosmith said:

What EVER made you believe that CdnLIAR was reasonable or rational?

An ability to recognize reason and rationality?   Which is why you don't  

Hell you're too scared to actually even talk to me  

[DUI_Offender]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

An ability to recognize reason and rationality?   Which is why you don't  

Hell you're too scared to actually even talk to me  

Maybe he suspects the 5 pills of NyQuil you take daily have kicked in, and figures he would rather ignore you.

[Rebound]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's disappointing to see this level of dishonesty from you. You claim to be impartial and that none of that is that important to you, yet you're being extremely dishonest in your reply and pretending that the problem is something that isn't. You can't address any of the real points, and you pretend that people are talking about something completely different.

Nobody thinks this is a conspiracy going back centuries or anything along those lines. Nobody thinks that there's anything weird with having to make an adjustment later in the year.

Pretending that that's a problem just makes you look like a dishonest partisan liar. You know that's not the issue

Blah blah blah… Deflect from the truth as always. 
 

Democrats: 50 Million Jobs

Republicans: 1 Million Jobs

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Maybe he suspects the 5 pills of NyQuil you take daily have kicked in, and figures he would rather ignore you.

Are you working for the cinema companies? Cuz you're doing a great job of projection  

[CdnFox]

53 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Blah blah blah… Deflect from the truth as always. 
 

Democrats: 50 Million Jobs

Republicans: 1 Million Jobs

Blah blah blah lie and use false and misleading stats. 

I've gone over in extreme detail why biden's economy was far worse than trump, and the use of covid shutdowns to prop up fake numbers is pathetic. 

But at the end of the day the PUBLIC knows the truth.   That's why biden was doing so amazingly badly even before the debate. "Bidenomics" was a complete failure and left people unable to afford the basics, and the people could see it and wanted change. 

The Dem penchant for denying facts and cherry picking talking points is one of the things that is going to kill them in this election. 

[Rebound]

20 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

yes, I know. Even though this has been done for the last 30 years with little complaint from a certain someone. And actually on a percentage basis, the upward revisions during the Trump were greater than in absolute terms than the .5% decline that made this thread happen. Shhh.. don't let the secret out. 

also,  It is somehow beneficial to Harris and Biden to have their jobs number decline. Explain that one to me.. 

last detail but they are a recurrent neural network model so if you change one variable in March.. it has a cascading effect for each month afterwards. 

The benefit of the revised jobs figures are that it shows the Administration is honest. Because if the Federal Government did such a thing under a Trump Presidency, he’d either block release of the figures until after the election, or he’d fire whoever did it. 
 

[DUI_Offender]

It seems that for the past 35 years, when a Democrat is President, employment in North America rises substantially. When a Republican is in office, employment growth usually stagnates.  Look through history:

 

George Bush Sr- job growth stagnates, recession.

Bill Clinton- job growth explodes, leaves office as President who created most jobs ever

George W Bush- job growth stagnates, and then job loss occurs for the last 2 years of his term

Barack Obama- once recession is over in late 2010, job growth explodes, and employment rate remains strong.

Donald Trump- first President ever to have a net job loss.

Joe Biden- job growth explodes after he takes office.

 

 

Edited August 31 by DUI_Offender

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

The benefit of the revised jobs figures are that it shows the Administration is honest. 

The opposite would tend to be true. It calls into question the government's honesty with regards to the initial guesstimates. The only thing that it actually shows is that the department collecting the final numbers is honest.

If anything it's strongly suggests that the government is dishonest missing a guess bite 100% like that is beyond fishy

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

It seems that for the past 35 years, when a Democrat is President, employment in North America rises substantially. When a Republican is in office, employment growth usually stagnates.  Look through history:

There is a very good reason for that. The democrats get in and spend wildly which artificially inflates the economy. Job growth goes up artificially and the economy looks good but it's a bubble. The bubble bursts and the people bring in the republicans to deal with it because they believe they are fiscally more responsible. The republicans fix everything and then the cycle repeats, the democrats get in promising free everything for everybody, overspend and guess what.

There's an old saying in Canada, when times are tough turn to the tories. The tories or the republicans will always be in power when the economy is poor because that is who the people trust to actually fix it. The democrats and liberals will always be in power during periods of runaway economic growth because they will spend like crazy and artificially pump the economy until it burns out and disaster strikes. Then back to the tories

[DUI_Offender]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There is a very good reason for that. The democrats get in and spend wildly which artificially inflates the economy.

Actually, when Democrats have been in power, the annual US deficit has decreased historically.

[DUI_Offender]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

There's an old saying in Canada, when times are tough turn to the tories. 

First off, the Tories do not exist. The party has been defunct since 2003. Secondly, the demise of the PC Party (Tories), was their handling of the Constitutional Crisis of the early 90s, and the early 90s recession. Kim Campbell went on record in 1993, during the brief time she was PM, and stated that the recession was likely to last for the remainder of the decade.

When the Liberal Party took office, the economy immediately got better, and recovered by 1995, and Canada went into a period of relative prosperity for the next decade.  The Tories never recovered, and merged with the Alliance.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Actually, when Democrats have been in power, the annual US deficit has decreased historically.

It is higher than ever under biden it was record levels under obama . 

The republicans get in when times are fiscally tough thanks to the dems.  It takes them  4 to 8 years to get the economy running right again, and during that time revenues are down because the economy was in the shitter. Then when things get good again the dems get in and we see spending going up, productivity goiong down and inflationary pressures.

For example the housing bubble burst when bush was in power - but the entire thing was a result of the democrat  actions under clinton which made it so anyone could buy a home and resulted in the bubble existing in the first place. Bush tried to stop it but the dems resisted and pop. So - bush cleans up the mess. But it was the dems who caused it when they were in. 

Imagine going to a fancy restaurant with someone. You sit down and they order the most lavish and expensive meal possible. Then just before the bill comes they jump up and run out the door leaving you stuck with the bill that you have to put on your credit card.

Then the next day they brag to all their friends about how little they spent on their meal last night and how ridiculously crazy you're spending was.

that's what you're talking about here

 

[DUI_Offender]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It is higher than ever under biden it was record levels under obama . 

The republicans get in when times are fiscally tough thanks to the dems.  It takes them  4 to 8 years to get the economy running right again, and during that time revenues are down because the economy was in the shitter. Then when things get good again the dems get in and we see spending going up, productivity goiong down and inflationary pressures.

 

 

 

Here is a chart that illustrates that annual budget deficit up until 2019. Notice how the deficit is usually larger when Republicans are in office. For example, Reagan/Bush ran deficits every year. Clinton became president in 1993, and by the end of his term there was actually a surplus. 

George W Bush came in, and beginning in 2002, started running a deficit again, and the last two years were historically bad.  Obama begins his term in 2009, with a historically bad economy, and manages to reduce the deficit annually for the majority of his term. Trump comes in, and once again, the deficit grows to historical lows. 

You can spin this however you want, but it still will not make what you are saying correct.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

 

Here is a chart that illustrates that annual budget deficit up until 2019. Notice how the deficit is usually larger when Republicans are in office. 

The democrat deficits there damn near tally up to all the republican deficits even tho they were in power a lot less of the time. 

Yeah.  I see it.  Did you mean to point that out?

The more interesting part is the time when clinton was in.  Things were going great right? THat's because of all the housing activity. And why was there housing activity is they forced the lending institutions to give mortgages even when people weren't qualified.  THis lead to a prosperous period .... and also the great recession. 

Dems screw things up, the republicans clean things up. 

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

George W Bush came in, and beginning in 2002, started running a deficit again, and the last two years were historically bad.

You mean during the war? 

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Obama begins his term in 2009

And the deficit tripled.  Tripled.  Higher than it ever had been by miles. And it stays there for his entire first term pretty much

Then he slowly reduced it but at its best it still wasn't as good as bush's. Obama at his lowest was still around bush at his highest AND that's after many years of double to triple the deficits. 

Obama spent like a madman. 

And the economy was laggy and doing poorly, taxes were high, there were serious problems. 

So trump gets in, makes some tax cuts and while there's a short term reduction in revenue there's a jump in business investment and jobs. 

Then covid of course.  But - biden gets in and even after covid spending and deficit shoots up even higher than trumps by a long way. 

You literally just posted a graph that speaks to my points. Well done. 

democrats make a mess of things. Republicans clean it up and that generally means that during the republicans term the economy is not ideal and things like tax cuts or such are necessary. 

Canada is even worse for this.