Unemployment ticks up to 7.9%

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn

I work for an Environmental Engineering firm.

Our office has hired atleast 15 people over the past year, and are continuing to hire.

I'll send you a PM.

This is what I love about this forum.

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

You think current employment data is the worst you've ever seen? .

I had not problem reading this and guarantee you it is factually correct and in line with what I've seen in my 55 years (underline added to emphasize the part you apparently missed). And I barely escaped bankruptcy in 1980 when that economic meltdown ruined the business I owned at the time.

In fairness - the employment (or unemployment) data are the worst I've seen in my adult life that has run as LONG as this has.

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

I had not problem reading this and guarantee you it is factually correct and in line with what I've seen in my 55 years (underline added to emphasize the part you apparently missed). And I barely escaped bankruptcy in 1980 when that economic meltdown ruined the business I owned at the time.

The reason I didn't immediately get that he was saying that the entirety of the last 4 or 5 years was the worst is because that wouldn't make sense in response to what I was saying. I made no comment to the effect that things hadn't been bad, just noted the reality that they were improving (while qualifying that reality by indicating that they could be better). Rereading his post I realized that I should have picked up on what exactly he was saying and just understood that it wasn't meant to refute anything I said - just going off as an aside.

Of course things have been the worst we've seen in our lifetimes, that's something I've pointed out myself before. But other things can be true at the same time that that is true - e.g., the employment situation has been improving, albeit slowly, and this most recent report was fairly decent (and well received by the markets). The recovery from this last recession has been the slowest we've seen since the Great Depression in part because the recession was (by its nature) the worst we've seen since then. And government policy has not been as helpful as it could have been. This isn't something we're in disagreement about.

[philibusters]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

But they are the things I’m talking about. The things that are affecting ordinary Americans.

I’m embarrassed for this country, that they felt it was necessary to keep the status quo. Not just Obama, but congress.

There seem to be enough people voicing the same things I’m saying, people that I believe to be quite educated and have good sources to their info. Yet you come in telling all of us we are misinformed. Why don’t you share your superior sources so we can all get in on the information; rather than just doing a thatguy or ToJo or BB and summarily telling us we’re all wrong. You tell me that I don’t bother to understand what I’m talking about. I feel I completely understand what I’m talking about. I do the best I can with the sources I have. Don’t accuse me of being dishonest and not having legitimate points without at least sharing specifically where I have it wrong and sources so I can get it right.

I like to think I am honestly striving towards a real conservative direction. It’s not in my interest to just criticize for the sake of disagreeing on political grounds. I have no desire to be dishonest in my assessment of things. But I call things the way I see them. I refuse to give benefit of the doubt where it is not deserved. I am absolutely convinced the efforts of the Obama administration are purposely designed to ‘fundamentally transform’ this country in a direction that is counter to what it was built on. I am convinced Obama is not the least bit interested in fixing this economy. He can’t rebuild things if he first doesn’t destroy what we have. So, there is no rose color you can place on this economy because there is no intent on truly fixing it.

You can’t fix the problem unless you are FIRST willing to admit what the problem is.

I am 100% with Tilted on his general point that people are very biased and generally not aware of their biases. On the particular employment numbers I don't really look at the underlying data myself, and I don't really have the analytically tools to do anything but a clumsy analysis even if I did, so I cannot tell you if Tilted interpretation of the data agrees with my educated opinion of the data. However, people on both sides of the aisle are fairly blind in my opinion. People approach politics the same way they treat sporting events, they root for one team. Most people are completely bias in how they interpret data.

There are a lot of very smart well educated economists on the left claiming Obama's polices helped avoid an economic depression and that he should be commended. That doesn't mean that their interpretation of the Obama's economic policies success should be automatically accepted.

The same is true of the rights analysis. I saw a Professor of Business at the University of Maryland write a piece in response to this latest release that the .1 rise in unemployment was indicative of how bad the job situation was and that the only thing keeping the data from getting worse is the falling rate of people seeking employment. That professor then cited a fact if participation levels were at the level they were in 2000, unemployment would be 9.9%. Just because that analysis sounds good to you, doesn't mean you should grab unto it.

I actually don't think people even mean to be intellectual dishonest. Plato was often intellectual dishonest in his philosophy, Scalia is sometimes intellectual dishonest in his defense of originalism, Obama is sometimes dishonest about the effects of his policy. I think to be dishonest you really have to have the analytically tools and sophistication to know better. What most of us are guilty of (including myself) is slightly different. We are guilty of not questioning what we want to hear. I may not have the sophistication to really make a nuanced interpretation of the job data by myself, but that doesn't mean I should just accept the first person who offers an interpretation in line with what I want to hear.

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

But they are the things I’m talking about. The things that are affecting ordinary Americans.

Understood, but that's not what I was talking about. When I made my original comment about people making comments about the employment reports that didn't make sense or that weren't accurate, did you think I was directing that comment at you? I was not, I honestly don't recall many comments from you about the employment reports. I intentionally did not quote your OP in my response so as to not create that impression. Had I meant to direct that specific comment toward you, I would have quoted you.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I’m embarrassed for this country, that they felt it was necessary to keep the status quo. Not just Obama, but congress

Me too, though I guess it would be more to the point to say I'm embarrassed by human nature which is what has lead to that result. We often don't want in reality (and in specific) what we say we want in the abstract (and in general). And we're often not honest with ourselves.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

There seem to be enough people voicing the same things I’m saying, people that I believe to be quite educated and have good sources to their info. Yet you come in telling all of us we are misinformed. Why don’t you share your superior sources so we can all get in on the information; rather than just doing a thatguy or ToJo or BB and summarily telling us we’re all wrong. You tell me that I don’t bother to understand what I’m talking about. I feel I completely understand what I’m talking about. I do the best I can with the sources I have. Don’t accuse me of being dishonest and not having legitimate points without at least sharing specifically where I have it wrong and sources so I can get it right.

Now hold on, I think my track record for explaining what I'm saying and referring to primary sources is pretty good. In fact, I probably get more the opposite reaction - when I take the time to fully explain things, people tune it out or express frustration about my having done so. If memory serves, I think you've expressed frustration about me taking the time to throughly explain things before.

That said, I'm not sure what you're referring to that you think I've told you you were dishonest about or didn't understand. If you have something specific in mind, I'd probably be willing to explain in some detail why I think that. When I've thought you were wrong about or spinning something, and I had the time and inclination to make that assertion, I think I've gone on to explain why. If not, I apologize - point me to it and I'll try to fill in the details when I have a chance. There was something you were talking about a while ago that I started to respond in detail to, but I never got around to finishing or posting that response. I don't recall what it was right now, but I'm pretty sure I didn't just respond 'you're wrong' and leave it at that.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I like to think I am honestly striving towards a real conservative direction. It’s not in my interest to just criticize for the sake of disagreeing on political grounds. I have no desire to be dishonest in my assessment of things. But I call things the way I see them. I refuse to give benefit of the doubt where it is not deserved. I am absolutely convinced the efforts of the Obama administration are purposely designed to ‘fundamentally transform’ this country in a direction that is counter to what it was built on. I am convinced Obama is not the least bit interested in fixing this economy. He can’t rebuild things if he first doesn’t destroy what we have. So, there is no rose color you can place on this economy because there is no intent on truly fixing it.

If it matters at all to you, I believe that. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother responding to you (as much).

Originally Posted by PsyOps

You can’t fix the problem unless you are FIRST willing to admit what the problem is.

I agree completely with that, and often that's much my point. I think we conservatives are far too often not willing to admit what the real problem is - we're not honest with ourselves. That's what I would like to see improve. Instead of looking for whatever angle we can find to blame the other guys, I wish we'd be real with ourselves about what's going on, why things are as they are, what the numbers really mean. This is particularly true when it comes to our spending and deficit issues, we aren't going to be a helpful voice with regard to them until we're completely honest about what is causing the problems.

Same apology, I'm forgoing proofreading my comments right now in the interest of having more time to tend to other things - I hope what I've said makes sufficient sense.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by philibusters

I am 100% with Tilted on his general point that people are very biased and generally not aware of their biases. On the particular employment numbers I don't really look at the underlying data myself, and I don't really have the analytically tools to do anything but a clumsy analysis even if I did, so I cannot tell you if Tilted interpretation of the data agrees with my educated opinion of the data. However, people on both sides of the aisle are fairly blind in my opinion. People approach politics the same way they treat sporting events, they root for one team. Most people are completely bias in how they interpret data.

There are a lot of very smart well educated economists on the left claiming Obama's polices helped avoid an economic depression and that he should be commended. That doesn't mean that their interpretation of the Obama's economic policies success should be automatically accepted.

The same is true of the rights analysis. I saw a Professor of Business at the University of Maryland write a piece in response to this latest release that the .1 rise in unemployment was indicative of how bad the job situation was and that the only thing keeping the data from getting worse is the falling rate of people seeking employment. That professor then cited a fact if participation levels were at the level they were in 2000, unemployment would be 9.9%. Just because that analysis sounds good to you, doesn't mean you should grab unto it.

I actually don't think people even mean to be intellectual dishonest. Plato was often intellectual dishonest in his philosophy, Scalia is sometimes intellectual dishonest in his defense of originalism, Obama is sometimes dishonest about the effects of his policy. I think to be dishonest you really have to have the analytically tools and sophistication to know better. What most of us are guilty of (including myself) is slightly different. We are guilty of not questioning what we want to hear. I may not have the sophistication to really make a nuanced interpretation of the job data by myself, but that doesn't mean I should just accept the first person who offers an interpretation in line with what I want to hear.

Okay… what should I cling on to? You just cited a professor of business that pretty much supported my point, then went on to talk about how we should doubt it. On what grounds? Since you admitted “I don't really look at the underlying data myself, and I don't really have the analytically tools to do anything but a clumsy analysis”, you have to rely on professionals in the business to inform you. This professor apparently does this for a living and DOES HAVE THE ANALYTICALTOOLS to come to an informed conclusion. What reason in the world would you have to not trust what he’s concluded? His conclusion jives not only with dozens of reports that are out there, but it jives with the reality of our economy.

So being the lay-people we are in this discussion, how do YOU decide on who you trust? Do you just sit in the middle and trust no one and take no opinion on it at all? Because, when election time comes around, that sort of position sure doesn’t help you make an informed decision. And I’ll tell you this, when it comes to making that decision, I will operate on my ignorant bias. I will operate on my intellectually dishonest mindset.

And in case you didn’t get it, the last two lines was sarcasm.

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by philibusters

I am 100% with Tilted on his general point that people are very biased and generally not aware of their biases. On the particular employment numbers I don't really look at the underlying data myself, and I don't really have the analytically tools to do anything but a clumsy analysis even if I did, so I cannot tell you if Tilted interpretation of the data agrees with my educated opinion of the data. However, people on both sides of the aisle are fairly blind in my opinion. People approach politics the same way they treat sporting events, they root for one team. Most people are completely bias in how they interpret data.

There are a lot of very smart well educated economists on the left claiming Obama's polices helped avoid an economic depression and that he should be commended. That doesn't mean that their interpretation of the Obama's economic policies success should be automatically accepted.

The same is true of the rights analysis. I saw a Professor of Business at the University of Maryland write a piece in response to this latest release that the .1 rise in unemployment was indicative of how bad the job situation was and that the only thing keeping the data from getting worse is the falling rate of people seeking employment. That professor then cited a fact if participation levels were at the level they were in 2000, unemployment would be 9.9%. Just because that analysis sounds good to you, doesn't mean you should grab unto it.

I actually don't think people even mean to be intellectual dishonest. Plato was often intellectual dishonest in his philosophy, Scalia is sometimes intellectual dishonest in his defense of originalism, Obama is sometimes dishonest about the effects of his policy. I think to be dishonest you really have to have the analytically tools and sophistication to know better. What most of us are guilty of (including myself) is slightly different. We are guilty of not questioning what we want to hear. I may not have the sophistication to really make a nuanced interpretation of the job data by myself, but that doesn't mean I should just accept the first person who offers an interpretation in line with what I want to hear.

He's probably right about that, though I'd have to run the numbers myself to confirm it (frankly, my hunch would have been higher than 9.9%). But I wonder what his point was? The participation rate is much lower now not just because (probably not even primarily because) of the economic recession and lackluster recovery. The participation rate is lower in large part because of changing demographics. We aren't going back to 2000 level participation rates unless some new demographic trend takes hold.

If he meant to bring attention to the larger demographic problem confronting our nation going forward, then fair enough. If he was trying to suggest that his point speaks to how bad the recession / recovery has been, then he's missed the mark.

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Okay… what should I cling on to? You just cited a professor of business that pretty much supported my point, then went on to talk about how we should doubt it. On what grounds? Since you admitted “I don't really look at the underlying data myself, and I don't really have the analytically tools to do anything but a clumsy analysis”, you have to rely on professionals in the business to inform you. This professor apparently does this for a living and DOES HAVE THE ANALYTICALTOOLS to come to an informed conclusion. What reason in the world would I have to not trust what he’s concluded? His conclusion jives not only with dozens of reports that are out there, but it jives with the reality of our economy.

So being the lay-people we are in this discussion, how do YOU decide on who you trust? Do you just sit in the middle and trust no one and take no opinion on it at all? Because, when election time comes around, that sort of position sure doesn’t help you make an informed decision. And I’ll tell you this, when it comes to making that decision, I will operate on my ignorant bias. I will operate on my intellectually dishonest mindset.

And in case you didn’t get it, the last two lines was sarcasm.

To the extent possible, you go figure things out for yourself. Then you can get a sense for who's blowing smoke up your ass and who is, themselves, also sincerely interested in figuring out what the truth of the matter - the reality of the matter - is.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

To the extent possible, you go figure things out for yourself. Then you can get a sense for who's blowing smoke up your ass and who is, themselves, also sincerely interested in figuring out what the truth of the matter - the reality of the matter - is.

And you believe I haven't done that? All you and phil do is tell me how uninformed I am. So my sources must be off. Give me your superior sources. I'm just a simple guy trying to make sense of things. I apparently don't have the research tools at my disposal that you have.

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

And you believe I haven't done that? All you and phil do is tell me how uninformed I am. So my sources must be off. Give me your superior sources. I'm just a simple guy trying to make sense of things. I apparently don't have the research tools at my disposal that you have.

I don't have superior sources, everyone has access to the same source data I do (e.g. employment reports, congressional records, text of legislation, U.S. code, various economic data provided by the Fed, GDP reports, DOE provided data, court opinions, etc., etc.).

You have me at a disadvantage though, I don't know what in specific you are referring to that you think I've said you are misinformed about. I can't find where I've said something to that effect in this thread. If you will point me to where I said you were uninformed about something, I will do my best to explain (if I haven't already) why I think that and provide whatever background information or sources that seem needed. As I've said, I think when I've disagreed with you - for the most part - I've either not gotten around to commenting at all or, if I've commented to the effect that you were wrong, I've expended some effort explaining why. I can't provide you with a source to correct your supposed misinformation if I don't know what it is that you're supposedly misinformed about.

And you asked how you might decide who to trust, so I suggested that one way is to figure things out for yourself. I'm sure in some cases you have done that or tried to do that. Regardless, my suggestion stands - that's how people can know who to trust and what to believe. I've often suggested that people go read things for themselves rather than take my word (or anyone else's) for things. I typically wouldn't ask someone to believe me just because I say so, unless they'd gotten to the point (e.g. through having known me for a long time and finding that they could rely on my judgment) where they had confidence that they could do just that - and I would not think that would apply to anyone who only knows me through a forum like this.