lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
If raging against the machine is sitting at home arguing about the oversimplifications of economic indicators on a Saturday night , then I am a wild man.
Labor Force Participation Rate
- Thread starter lifegoesonbrah
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
by my calculations, if you are a not too shitty corn grower and pump out 150 bushels an acre, you have at least 166 or so acres of corn.
am i close on the corn acreage? is it closer to 150 or 200 acres?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the labor force participation rate is much more complex than what boy wonder lifegoesonbrah is trying to make of it. i am, by definition, a "marginally attached worker". it means i'll take a job if i want to, but i'm not necessarily looking for one by the standards set forth by each state. looking for work in one state means something different than my neighboring state. wages are stagnant and have been for 30+ years, so i am on the very loose search, not sufficient to meet state standards for a search. i browse CL for jobs every day, i network a bit, but nothing that would meet my state's criteria.
so yeah, undefinables like me are out there.
as far as the direction of the economy goes, it's not uber-pleasant. housing is still bogged down and may still be down for some time now. the eurozone seems set for another summer of fuck all that will likely fuck with us. i don't see anything that any president could do fix europe or the entire housing market. or gas prices for that matter. seeing them dip down all of a sudden is not necessarily a good thing, but i haven't looked at why the reason for the sudden drop. too many areas to till and crops to plant at this time of year.
so yeah, undefinables like me are out there.
as far as the direction of the economy goes, it's not uber-pleasant. housing is still bogged down and may still be down for some time now. the eurozone seems set for another summer of fuck all that will likely fuck with us. i don't see anything that any president could do fix europe or the entire housing market. or gas prices for that matter. seeing them dip down all of a sudden is not necessarily a good thing, but i haven't looked at why the reason for the sudden drop. too many areas to till and crops to plant at this time of year.
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
Why the unemployment rate is not a good indicator:
Yes, when a Recession hits there is a lag time between it's start and when the 1% start laying off the pheasants so that their income does not go down. First chart is correct.
The 2nd is completely flawed. 3 years is in no way adequate time to measure anything. Try again I'm sure there is a plether of crap like that out there to 'prove' what lazy slugs we all are.
"Why is it easier to believe that 150000000 Americans are being lazy rather than 400 Americans are being greedy?"
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
totally agreed except for the pheasant part. all the pheasant i've ever seen do not seem to be gainfully employed.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Before you insinuated that everything was fine and dandy with the decreasing unemployment rates, flip-flopper.
Your Obama propaganda video plays on the unemployment rate pretty hard for the lulz.
No, it is the measuring stick THE GOVERNMENT uses, then for some stupid reason we just assume it is correct and then use the governments numbers to do our own statistics. The plain and simple truth is that 160,000 people lost their job last month, according to the household survey, and the BLS just went and added 326,000 jobs via the Birth/Death model, which is a euphemism for fudging the numbers. That's how you end up with a growth of 160K jobs when in actuality you had more people lose them than found them.
Main Stream economists are all 95% employed by government or University, they would look stupid if they didn't stick together and tell everyone this is how it's supposed to work, look at my PhD!! Squirrel!!
They gonna tart this ugly bitch up til after the election, then pull out all the stops as the economy is SUNK!!
I have a whole section but 1/4 is in CRP and another 1/8 is for hay. so 5/8ths of a section is my crop property. My corn Acreage was 1/4 section (160 acres). I got between 155 and 160 bushel per acre in this dirt.
ThatGuy113
Well-Known Member
Now fundamental economic statistics are conspiracies. This is an issue of miseducation not deception. Its assumed that the unemployment rate and labor force statistics are calculated the way they are and then should be put into perspective with the other numbers within the economy like you guys have been doing. The issue is we arent talking about you guys. You guys know where to look for info and how to put it into comprehension, the average no nothing voter you are claiming are being victims of government tricks arent even close to being in the loop. The issue is they never cared in the first place, they feel they have the right to be appalled and up in arms because they werent paying attention in the first place. You guys are making the labor statistics into something they are not, by definition they are calculated correctly which includes the fact that any non active unemployed worker is not counted. The projections for non active workers are included in another calculation under another name and should be looked for in that statistic and not in the unemployment rate.
Its your job is to count red apples but you guys want to count green apples too. That wasnt the original job you were given. Unemployment numbers do not count non active workers. Macro 101
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so you're using those monsanto beans and raking in government subsidies then i take it.
