- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:46 pm to Powerman
quote:
Funny
What's funny is how many times you have re-dug your trenches in this thread. Thanks for the laughs tho.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:52 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
Yah but the unemployment dropped 20% and the LPR only dropped 2%!!!
To be fair his numbers are right, but incredibly misleading as they cannot be compared side by side as Participation is a component of U3.
He's using percent difference of the percentage points, which is odd.
((Initial-current)/Initial)*100
((10-7)/10) * 100 = 30 percent difference between 10% and 7%
((65.5-62.7)/65.5) * 100 = 4.27 percent difference between 65.5 and 62.7
The major issue is that the numbers aren't comparable as a lowered PR will necessarily result in lower U3 as a part of the calculation. So I agree that his number use is poor and misleading, as he tried to make these stats lie. However the numbers he used aren't wrong.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 1:14 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:I'm reasonably certain he still doesn't know what his math fail was that we all laughed at.
What's funny is how many times you have re-dug your trenches in this thread. Thanks for the laughs tho.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 1:29 pm to SettleDown
I'm well aware of it
I was just using the type of stupid math that people use in debates
Clearly the employment figures and not the unemployment figures are what you should look at
It's a simple multiplication problem
I was just using the type of stupid math that people use in debates
Clearly the employment figures and not the unemployment figures are what you should look at
It's a simple multiplication problem
Posted on 1/10/14 at 1:32 pm to GumboPot
quote:
You need to look at the magnitude of the numbers on the y-axis on the right. Left y-axis is unemployment and right y-axis is participation rate.
So true are false: the claim that the participation rate is at a 36 year low is a flat out lie
Let me know what you come up with chief
Posted on 1/10/14 at 1:33 pm to Powerman
quote:
I was just using the type of stupid math that people use in debates
Posted on 1/10/14 at 1:35 pm to Powerman
quote:
I was just using the type of stupid math that people use in debates
No you weren't. You got caught, and then you tried to defend it for 2 pages.
Just admit that you were stupid, and didn't think the matter through. People might actually start respecting your opinions then.
all you are doing now is doubling down on stupid.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 1:35 pm to blackrose890
quote:
He's using percent difference of the percentage points, which is odd.
That would be odd. Did not use percent difference of percent points. I used unemployed % = (participation# - employed#/participation#)*100. Actual numbers not percentages.
FWIW, I don't know if this is the basic formula to calculate unemployment %. I was only trying to communicate my interpretation (and I think CNN's and many others too) of the relationship between unemployment% and participation in an easy to see model.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 1:41 pm to GumboPot
I didnt begrudge or demean your usage.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 1:42 pm to Powerman
quote:
So true are false: the claim that the participation rate is at a 36 year low is a flat out lie
Wait you are saying the participation rate is not at a 36 year low?
Posted on 1/10/14 at 1:42 pm to Powerman
quote:
So true are false: the claim that the participation rate is at a 36 year low is a flat out lie
Let me know what you come up with chief
Posted on 1/10/14 at 1:44 pm to Powerman
quote:
So true are false: the claim that the participation rate is at a 36 year low is a flat out lie
Let me know what you come up with chief
OK, powerman. We've established 2 things.
1) You can't do math.
2) you can't read a graph.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 1:44 pm to blackrose890
quote:
I didnt begrudge or demean your usage.
An I didn't take it that way. I don't mind being challenged...actually I like it.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 1:47 pm to BugAC
fair enough
This post was edited on 1/10/14 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 1/10/14 at 1:49 pm to GumboPot
Damn, so we're basically approaching the workforce percentage level now of the time before women began entering the workforce en masse? 
Posted on 1/10/14 at 1:55 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
Wait you are saying the participation rate is not at a 36 year low?
I must need more coffee
I was looking at the red line on the graph instead of the blue line
Posted on 1/10/14 at 2:04 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Damn, so we're basically approaching the workforce percentage level now of the time before women began entering the workforce en masse?
Right. But I think there are two general causes. One is political and one is structural. The political cause is Obama's policies, the largest being Obamacare. It is forcing businesses to pile resources into meeting that regulation instead of reinvestment. The second is the retirement of the baby boomer generation. The baby boomer generation is a large population of employed people leaving the work force.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 2:06 pm to GumboPot
quote:
It is forcing businesses to pile resources into meeting that regulation instead of reinvestment.
This is true to an extent and in particular for smaller and medium size businesses.
But as far as big business goes, it's not a lack of capital to reinvest.
quote:
The second is the retirement of the baby boomer generation. The baby boomer generation is a large population of employed people leaving the work force.
This will eventually be a good thing.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 2:06 pm to NHTIGER
Does it matter ? We all know job participation is at 45 year lows.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News