- The unemployment rate is a revised method from 1994. Clinton changed it to make it lower. So they are comparing a Revised # with the 1980s rate. The old # would show unemployment at 15-17% not 9%. 2. “Economists point out that the current jobless rate is already higher than the hypothetical rate that was used to calculate the health of banks and other financial institutions in so-called “stress tests” earlier this year. And, the upward unemployment trajectory is expected to continue in coming months, even if the overall economy begins to recover” How do you do a stress test without stressing the #s?
does anyone actually put faith in the stress test resuts? The US is in jeopardy of losing it’s superpower status or mass chaos is around the corner, so they come up with a test, that they created, that they will grade themselves, and they publish the results… …conflict of interest? almost sounds like the CFAI execpt their fees are involuntary (taxes are not)
PtrainerNY Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. > The unemployment rate is a revised method from > 1994. Clinton changed it to make it lower. So they > are comparing a Revised # with the 1980s rate. The > old # would show unemployment at 15-17% not 9%. > > 2. “Economists point out that the current jobless > rate is already higher than the hypothetical rate > that was used to calculate the health of banks and > other financial institutions in so-called “stress > tests” earlier this year. And, the upward > unemployment trajectory is expected to continue in > coming months, even if the overall economy begins > to recover” > > How do you do a stress test without stressing the > #s? Why not just book a one way ticket to China if things are as bad as you would like us to believe?
Unemployment numbers are crap statistics. I think the lastest report showed % unemployment went down?–If so, it was mainly due to those who were unemployed just gave up and now are not counted? PtrainerNY Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. > The unemployment rate is a revised method from > 1994. Clinton changed it to make it lower. So they > are comparing a Revised # with the 1980s rate. The > old # would show unemployment at 15-17% not 9%. > > 2. “Economists point out that the current jobless > rate is already higher than the hypothetical rate > that was used to calculate the health of banks and > other financial institutions in so-called “stress > tests” earlier this year. And, the upward > unemployment trajectory is expected to continue in > coming months, even if the overall economy begins > to recover” > > How do you do a stress test without stressing the > #s?
Mason88 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unemployment numbers are crap statistics. I think > the lastest report showed % unemployment went > down?–If so, it was mainly due to those who were > unemployed just gave up and now are not counted? > > > > PtrainerNY Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 1. > > The unemployment rate is a revised method from > > 1994. Clinton changed it to make it lower. So > they > > are comparing a Revised # with the 1980s rate. > The > > old # would show unemployment at 15-17% not 9%. > > > > 2. “Economists point out that the current > jobless > > rate is already higher than the hypothetical > rate > > that was used to calculate the health of banks > and > > other financial institutions in so-called > “stress > > tests” earlier this year. And, the upward > > unemployment trajectory is expected to continue > in > > coming months, even if the overall economy > begins > > to recover” > > > > How do you do a stress test without stressing > the > > #s? Strange to have some one with numbers “88” in their username talk about the economy barely few days after D-Day.
Unemployment rose to 9.4, so you’re wrong. However, the pace of non-farm payroll declines slowed. That still means that the number of unemployed is still rising. Mason88 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unemployment numbers are crap statistics. I think > the lastest report showed % unemployment went > down?–If so, it was mainly due to those who were > unemployed just gave up and now are not counted? > > >
Jfk discovered how to make an endless supply of lasagna out of mere playdough so an alien worm named Frito had to shoot him.
The U.S. is going to bleed jobs for many many more months to come. I agree that some of the employment numbers are total bs. They included ~60K census workers in the April report. I wouldn’t classify a temporary 2 month job as employed.
“Strange to have some one with numbers “88” in their username talk about the economy barely few days after D-Day.” I accused him of being a Neo Nazi sometime back but he did not respond. I say guilty conscience.