[boots]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
Am I the only one who doesnt understand this post? After 10 days you are claiming, from two different unstated sources that we have lost jobs in november yet you dont even know what october's numbers look like?

Sorry, that was backwards. We know the October numbers, not the november numbers.

One source is the government announcement of job creation, I'm not sure who the source of the other number is. I don't have the link, and it was a radio report on NPR, but it was mined form the 1st time unemployment claims.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
PM me if you feel the need to quote my posts without directly responding to anything within them. If I'm feeling nice, I might actually reply to you. I'm not perpetuating any lies, FWIW.

the actual quote is:

I would make the further observation of how much I hate the disingenuous nature of the conservatives on these types of issues:

the mangled quote you use is:

I would make the further observation of how much I hate .... conservatives...

What I actually was saying I hated were certain arguments, and I was clear about it. Your mangling makes it appear I was attacking people personally, or making an ad hominem argument, which I wasn't.

The reason this is chickensh@t and malicious tactic is because what I actually said was within the TOS agreement of this forum, whereas your mangling of it is not.

Since you make this malicious misquote public with every post you make, I see no reason to object privately. The damage is being incurred in the public arena, therefore I call you for being craven liar that you are.

If you would like me to adjust MY sig to reflect your character, I'd be happy to respond in kind.

[theolein]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
PM me if you feel the need to quote my posts without directly responding to anything within them. If I'm feeling nice, I might actually reply to you. I'm not perpetuating any lies, FWIW.

Fuck that, I'm going to report you as well for making personal attacks. I got warned three times by The Teenage Powers That Be� for not being sweet and kind to poor little retarded Zimphire and I see no reason why you should be able to engage in your little mindless hateful games if I can't.

[eklipse]

Originally misquoted by nvaughan3:
"I would make the further observation of how much I hate the ...conservatives..."

What a loser.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by boots:
Sorry, that was backwards. We know the October numbers, not the november numbers.

One source is the government announcement of job creation, I'm not sure who the source of the other number is. I don't have the link, and it was a radio report on NPR, but it was mined form the 1st time unemployment claims.

Sorry for the confusion.

Ah, maybe that should have been obvious to me. I'll try and find some numbers myself.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
""Gun control is a band-aid, feeling good approach to the nation's crime problem. It is easier for politicians to ban something than it is to condemn a murderer to death or a robber to life in prison. In essence, 'gun control' is the coward's way out.""

"Speed limits are a band-aid, feeling good approach to the nation's highway death problem. It is easier for politicians to ban something than it is to condemn a reckless driver to death or life in prison. In essence, 'speed limits' are the coward's way out."

Seems your new sig is no more truthful than the last.

"Americans love their country and fear their government. Liberals love their government and fear the people."

Liberals aren't Americans? You should be breathing a sigh of relief then... I guess all that "liberal media" stuff is bull if we aren't even in the country!

[nvaughan3]

Why do people continually quote signatures in threads having nothing to do with them? Either turn off sigs, ignore them, or comment privately. It's not hard to understand unless you've got the brain of al gore.

[Spliffdaddy]

Lots of thin-skinned folks around here.

Some of them, I think, logon to MacNN with the sole intent to search for things that offend them - in order to bitch and moan about it. and seek to remove those folks that offend them.

Like any good mac-centric webforum, the general population seeks to do nothing but pat themselves on the back, reassure each other, and zealously attempt to stifle conflicting opinion.

Give me a personal attack ANY DAY.

It sure beats the whiney elitist attitudes and their weak-ass thoughts that can't survive without life support being provided by the moderators.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Lots of thin-skinned folks around here.

Some of them, I think, logon to MacNN with the sole intent to search for things that offend them - in order to bitch and moan about it. and seek to remove those folks that offend them.

Like any good mac-centric webforum, the general population seeks to do nothing but pat themselves on the back, reassure each other, and zealously attempt to stifle conflicting opinion.

Give me a personal attack ANY DAY.

It sure beats the whiney elitist attitudes and their weak-ass thoughts that can't survive without life support being provided by the moderators.

"Some of them, I think, logon to MacNN with the sole intent to search for things that offend them - in order to bitch and moan about it."

Speak of the devil.

[Spliffdaddy]

speaking of weak-ass arguments and thin-skin...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Lots of thin-skinned folks around here.

Some of them, I think, logon to MacNN with the sole intent to search for things that offend them - in order to bitch and moan about it. and seek to remove those folks that offend them.

Like any good mac-centric webforum, the general population seeks to do nothing but pat themselves on the back, reassure each other, and zealously attempt to stifle conflicting opinion.

Give me a personal attack ANY DAY.

It sure beats the whiney elitist attitudes and their weak-ass thoughts that can't survive without life support being provided by the moderators.

since we're already off topic:

1. I asked a malicious lie with my name on it to be removed from nvaughn's sig....I did not ask for nvaughn to be removed. I daresay anyone in the same position would want the same thing.
2. "thin-skinned" is always an interesting ephithet. To call someone thin-skinned means you agree with them they are being abused, you just disagree on the amount of tolerance they should possess for that abuse.
3. One should always note who applies the term "thin-skinned" onto others...its more an indication of where they stand in favor of personal attacks.
4. In what way does trying to keep someone from lying about what I said constitute stifling conflicting opinion? I'd be very interested in your answer to that.
5. In what way does trying to keep someone from lying about what I said constitute "weak-ass thoughts"? I'd be very interested in your answer to that.

[boots]

So much for thoughtful discussion.....

[Spliffdaddy]

Thoughtful discussion is always welcome

But it does not allow you to learn about the person behind the opinion. Off-topic rants and disagreements can be just as important to the overall discussion as the original subject matter was to the thread. I like to know as much about a person as I can, in order to rank the merit of their opinion. Sometimes even I can find something to say that makes a lot of sense. If you didn't know I was a southern redneck Republican you might accidentally think I had a clue. It's only fair to let the newbies see the real us, don't you think? There's a chance I'll sway a few young impressionable minds toward conservatism, otherwise.

Anyways, I agree that civilized debate should make up the overwhelming majority of threads - and mostly it does.

That being said, there is nobody in here that I would like to see gone. While I may not value your opinion - you're certainly entitled to have one. Call me names, question my motives for owning a pet sheep, whatever you take a notion to do. The day I'm emotionally scarred by pixels on my flatpanel is the day I become a leftwing liberal peacenik in need of a good ass-kicking.

[boots]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Thoughtful discussion is always welcome

But it does not allow you to learn about the person behind the opinion. Off-topic rants and disagreements can be just as important to the overall discussion as the original subject matter was to the thread.

Well said. I think my threshold for bickering has gotten lower in the last few months. I don't mind the occasional off-topic exploration, but the one we just had was plain silly (no offense to zimphire for co-opting his word ).

That particular argument should have been two or three responses at most. We learned all we needed about the people involved in their first OT posts.

I was just trying to get things back on track without call anyone in particular down. That's not my job...and I don't want it. But I am interested in the topic of the thread....

[gadster]

Anyone know how many hours a week you have to work to be qualified as employed in the US? Here, the answer is . . . <drum roll> . . . 1 hour.

I wouldn't call that a job.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by gadster:
Anyone know how many hours a week you have to work to be qualified as employed in the US? Here, the answer is . . . <drum roll> . . . 1 hour.

I wouldn't call that a job.

employment statistics have always been heavily distorted by both simple happenstance and outright manipulation.

AFAIK, For example, some stats, by tracking unemployment stats only gives a less than accurate picture, as it only tracks those actively seeking employment through the unemployment benefits program. Once their benefits run out (and they do after a specified amount of time) and they are no longer reporting their job search efforts to the agency, they are no longer counted.

One of the more dramatic manipulations was during the Reagan administration, when they changed the way unemployment was tracked (essentially disallowing certain categories that were previously tracked), changing unemployment percentage from something like 13 % to 7%. (don't recall exact figures, but it was close to that)

The problem resides in the fact that actual totals are difficult to get a handle on. Even the Census figures are estimates, and always have been. So, instead of counting the number of employed and comparing that with the actual population ( a more fair way to come up with percent employed) Unemployment stats are often used and compared to overall population. The downfall, as I've pointed out, is that HOW one assesses who is to be counted as unemployed is highly malleable. Additionally, one can be underemployed, making minimum wage and working less than 15 hours a week and still be counted as employed. Homeless people are not counted as unemployed since they aren't in the unemployment benefits system. yet, they are obviously unemployed, as one example.

I chart government stats for newspapers and have done for quite some time. When you work with them a lot, you realize that nearly all stats that measure economic issues have some inherent flaw or inadequacy. For the most part, this is an innocent situation, influenced by just how difficult a task it is to get accurate and complete information. Therefore, nearly all are shortcuts in some way. Many rely on an index, which can be changed at will. For example, consumer price index used to be based on a certain basket of goods, like a dozen eggs, a loaf of bread, etc. About 12 years ago, they changed the contents of the basket for what they considered a standard consumer basket. Even though that's an innocent change, it does affect comparisons of CPI before and after the change. THEN, you have "adjusted" figures that attempt to adjust for inflation, and a variety of other variables, but that involves a human decision on how to adjust the data.

I think overreliance on economic indices is almost (but not quite) as bad as relying polls. They are both rough sketches of what they are trying to portray instead of a sharp photograph. And, they are both things that can be manipulated or adapted in different directions based on who decides how to tally the results.

perhaps, all such things should be caveat emptor.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No he is playing on the idiots that actually think that the President has a "economy button" he can push.

Oh so then he is just lying. I guess it's been shown that this is common practice in the Bush administration. I am glad you are ok with that.

villa

[Spliffdaddy]

Lerk makes some good points about the varying definitions of 'employed' (so, naturally, I checked my prescription medication for interactions and other possible side-effects that might inhibit full mental capacity).

Here's the problem. A lot of people don't need a job. Sure, they'll take a job if the pay and conditions are right - but they don't NEED a job in order to survive. I know quite a few people that fit this description. Their needs are met by other people...spouses and family, mostly. When these folks work, they are 'employed'. When these folks don't work, they are 'unemployed'. Statistically, they are just as significant as the unemployed folks that NEED jobs or HAVE jobs.

What would be a big help is to know how many people NEED jobs - as opposed to how many people are unemployed.

Lots of people who don't need a job would take a part-time work-at-home job that paid well...so are these people counted as unemployed while they seek their dream job?

Aw hell, you almost have to take every citizen of working age and count those that have jobs and those that don't have jobs. Even THAT statistic wouldn't be meaningful, but at least the numbers couldn't be easily manipulated.

[boots]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Lerk makes some good points about the varying definitions of 'employed' (so, naturally, I checked my prescription medication for interactions and other possible side-effects that might inhibit full mental capacity).

Here's the problem. A lot of people don't need a job. Sure, they'll take a job if the pay and conditions are right - but they don't NEED a job in order to survive. I know quite a few people that fit this description. Their needs are met by other people...spouses and family, mostly. When these folks work, they are 'employed'. When these folks don't work, they are 'unemployed'. Statistically, they are just as significant as the unemployed folks that NEED jobs or HAVE jobs.

What would be a big help is to know how many people NEED jobs - as opposed to how many people are unemployed.

That's why just unemployment claims are tracked. It is one of the only statistics that really has any practical meaning. One can debate the shortcomings, but I've yet to hear of a better way to track this with out infringing on some privacy issues.

Aw hell, you almost have to take every citizen of working age and count those that have jobs and those that don't have jobs. Even THAT statistic wouldn't be meaningful, but at least the numbers couldn't be easily manipulated.

Still wouldn't be meaningful for the reasons you state above. "Housewive" who are not employed for profit (and others in similar situations) would throw the numbers off.

To my way of thinking, the best way to get a real handle is to sum the 1st time unemployment claims for a given time period and balance that with the number of jobs created. The difference (jobs lost over a period of time minus number of jobs created over the same time) would be a relatively useful number.

Of course, this doesn't include "under-employed", etc .