Let’s see…
A. Get into a pissing match about Alberta politics in the pit on the SDMB.
B. Have 8" knitting needles jammed into my eyes.
That’s a hard call.
There’s always your favorite,
C. Get into a pissing match about American politics in the pit on the SDMB.
Not a hard call at all moron.
A. I don’t give a shit about Alberta politics.
B. Endorsed but I have an alibi.
Hey, shit for brains? Maybe stop starting hijacks instead of hiding behind that stupid rule to avoid having to defend your stupid opinions?
Sam’s I’m not unemployed I’m retired, but the recently retired, other than me, should be counted in the unemployment statistics stupidity starts here if anyone even cares.
Maybe quote the two posts that contradict each other? I’m not unconfused here.
Another example of the “one rule for me [productive hero] and another for thee [lazy freeloader]”
Text for the stupid software.
To clarify my annoyance.
I’ve watched conservatives demand that the way we count the unemployed change since Obama and it annoys me.
Do you have a job?
If yes, then employed.
Are you seeking a job or would you take one if it was offered?
If yes, then unemployed.
If no, then not a participant in the workforce and not counted.
But conservatives want to count nonparticipants as unemployed so the numbers look worse.
Except when a Republican is in charge, because of course at that time the non-participants are just lazy liberals looking for a handout and so they don’t count.
The thread is about why people aren’t working, and people are referencing U-3, which isn’t terribly useful for answering the question. U-3 doesn’t count retirees. That’s a fact, not a value judgement. So we have to look elsewhere to find why people aren’t working. And as was already discussed in that thread, 55+ labor force participation dropped about two points and hasn’t recovered.
So not to say Sam can’t have done something wrong elsewhere in that thread, but I’m not seeing the issue with that particular sequence.
Sam insisted earlier that retired people need to be counted as unemployed because it makes Biden look bad, but then refuses to count himself as unemployed despite being retired because it would make him look like a guy who can’t get work. It’s hypocritical.
That’s the inference people are drawing because it’s consistent with his MO.
Maybe that’s not what Sam meant, but given the fact that he’s done such things numerous times in the past, I think most people no longer give him the benefit of the doubt.
Please help me find this.
He said recently retired. My inference is that he meant if you had recently retired your status might be inadvertently lumped in as part of unemployment statistics, rather than properly counted as no longer working. In other words statistical noise.
I have absolutely no idea how accurate that is, but I didn’t find that little comment particularly egregious.
I just want to point out the details aren’t that important to me. What was/is is for the second time with me (no, not gonna hunt down a link, GD or P&E) Sam has used the ‘no hijacking’ rule to attempt to shut down my inquiry about a point Sam raised. In both cases after Sam making multiple posts that didn’t address the point I was trying to tease out of him.
Sam made a point, couldn’t really defend it, declared any further discussion of the point to be a hijack.
IOW Sam’s initial post wasn’t the hijack, me challenging it was. IMHO this is a flagrant abuse of the no hijack rule, by a non mod no less.
I can’t not read it as Sam wanting the underemployed, the recently retired, and folks that have voluntarily left the job market to be counted as unemployed,
Re-reading…yeah, fair. No way a retiree, recent or not, should be counted as unemployed.
I never said they should. This is Crowmanyclouds doing his usual thing of creatively reading my posts in any way that can be used to mount an attack on me.
What I was doing was explaining how you can simultabeously have a low unemployment rate with low worker participation. If some of the people leaving the job market retire or don’t look for work, they aren’t counted as ‘unemployed’. I even linked to the BLS household survey (which I’m sure he didn’t look at) to quantify the issue for him.
The point about the UNDERemployed is that they don’t show up in unemployment statistics, but that doesn’t mean they are happy. All this was in service of the idea that the perception of the economy as bad is not necessarily reflected in the unemployment statistics.
This is pretty basic stuff. I’m not surprised that Crowmanyclouds didn’t get it.
Yes, because they do not meet the currently used definition of unemployed. Surely we should include preschoolers as unemployed too right?
Yeah . . . BECAUSE THEY ARE EMPLOYED.
This is pretty basic stuff. I’m not surprised Sam_Stone doesn’t get it.
You’re the one not gettting it. You’re just restating my own point. Let me simplify it for you:
Pointing to the low unemployment rate and saying that it’s crazy for people to think the economy is bad when unemployment is low is potentially wrong because:
-
You can be in a job you hate, can’t find the job you want, and still be employed. When there are major sectoral shifts in the economy such as the Covid lockdowns, there could be a lot of this, and it’s hard to see.
-
You can be so discouraged about finding a job you drop out, and thus are no longer ‘unemployed’.
-
You could be settling for gig work or other ‘underemployment’, not be happy, and not show up in the unemployment statistics.
-
You can be retired, but not happy about it.
None of those people show up as ‘unemployed’, but all might consider the economy to be bad in their personal circumstances.
THAT’S IT. You’re the one creatively running around looking for a ‘gotcha’.
By the way, these were the standard arguments of the left not long ago when people on the right would say that the economy is good because there is low unemployment. This is not controversial.
This was the point that my Marxist professors made to me in Econ 101 way back in the mid-nineties, when 6% unemployment was considered effectively full employment. There’s nothing new or interesting about this point. What’s different is that now, that same rate, calculated the same way, is leading to historically low unemployment.
What’s more interesting than this nothingburger nitpicking is how you got something factually wrong in the Hunter Biden thread. When called on it, you pooh-poohed the correction and acted like it didn’t matter, when it completely undermined the point you were making.
You make long posts with a lot of facts in them. Any reader of your posts should be cautioned that your facts are likelier to be lies than to be the truth. You’re shameless.