09 Dec 2019, 3:59 am
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Darmok peddling pro-Trump Propaganda again...
So that's one pro-trump propaganda post compared to umpteen anti-trump propaganda posts.
Please refer to Fig 1 (courtesy of cyberdad) and Fig 2 (courtesy of solosailor)...they are facts....published in Forbes or other respectable publications.
Darmok's claim is based on tweets from Trump or unsubstantiated propoganda published in Brietbart or Fox
As this subject relates to one of my special interests, I feel compelled to note the following RE: the chart I posted:
The number that Darmok used is the 'U3' or 'headline' number (red line) which is usually released by the BLS on the first Friday of every month and is the one most often cited by the MSM.
The 'U6' number (grey line) is the 'adjusted' number which is usually released 3-5 days after the U3 and is rarely cited by the MSM.
Neither the U3 nor the U6 accurately report the true number of unemployed as the inclusion of long term unemployed / discouraged workers has been prohibited since the Clinton administration.
The 'SGS' number (blue line) is the U6 with long term unemployed / discouraged workers added back into the data set.
09 Dec 2019, 4:07 am
09 Dec 2019, 4:42 am
09 Dec 2019, 4:50 am
SoloSailor wrote:
As this subject relates to one of my special interests, I feel compelled to note the following RE: the chart I posted:
The number that Darmok used is the 'U3' or 'headline' number (red line) which is usually released by the BLS on the first Friday of every month and is the one most often cited by the MSM.
The 'U6' number (grey line) is the 'adjusted' number which is usually released 3-5 days after the U3 and is rarely cited by the MSM.
Neither the U3 nor the U6 accurately report the true number of unemployed as the inclusion of long term unemployed / discouraged workers has been prohibited since the Clinton administration.
The 'SGS' number (blue line) is the U6 with long term unemployed / discouraged workers added back into the data set.
The number that Darmok used is the 'U3' or 'headline' number (red line) which is usually released by the BLS on the first Friday of every month and is the one most often cited by the MSM.
The 'U6' number (grey line) is the 'adjusted' number which is usually released 3-5 days after the U3 and is rarely cited by the MSM.
Neither the U3 nor the U6 accurately report the true number of unemployed as the inclusion of long term unemployed / discouraged workers has been prohibited since the Clinton administration.
The 'SGS' number (blue line) is the U6 with long term unemployed / discouraged workers added back into the data set.
What the OP posted was an article from CNBC.
What was posted in italics were the words of Jeff Cox of CNBC. So your argument is with him, not the OP.
Quote:
Jeff Cox is the finance editor for CNBC.com where he manages coverage of the financial markets and Wall Street. His stories are routinely among the most-read items on the site each day as he interviews some of the smartest and most well-respected analysts and advisors in the financial world. He also is a frequent guest on CNBC.
https://www.cnbc.com/jeff-cox/
Are either of you two familiar with the saying "don't shoot the messenger"?
09 Dec 2019, 5:04 am
09 Dec 2019, 5:12 am
09 Dec 2019, 5:44 am
09 Dec 2019, 6:16 am
09 Dec 2019, 2:44 pm
09 Dec 2019, 2:48 pm
09 Dec 2019, 2:57 pm
09 Dec 2019, 3:43 pm
10 Dec 2019, 1:17 am
EzraS wrote:
The OP's name kept being dropped when it's Jeff Cox finance editor for CNBC's BS.
He's highlighting a snapshot/ short term trend, he's not attributing it to Trump's brilliance
like you and Darmok are trying to interject and project your own values onto a storyYou ignored some of the other posters here who accurately alluded to the rise of casual and part-time employment rather than meaningful full-time jobs...
10 Dec 2019, 2:22 am
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The OP's name kept being dropped when it's Jeff Cox finance editor for CNBC's BS.
He's highlighting a snapshot/ short term trend, he's not attributing it to Trump's brilliance
like you and Darmok are trying to interject and project your own values onto a storyYou ignored some of the other posters here who accurately alluded to the rise of casual and part-time employment rather than meaningful full-time jobs...
You are wrong the OP posted an article without interjecting anything of his own into it.
I didn't ignore anything. I'm simply not arguing the issue. All I have done in the thread is point out who wrote the article, mainly because you went into a fit blaming the OP for something he did not write and yammering about twitter fox and brietbart when it was CNBC.
It seems likely to me that you only read the title and flew off the handle.
10 Dec 2019, 12:27 pm
11 Dec 2019, 1:36 pm
