fox

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It has been said that the fact that Time wouldn't mentio the TEA party due to an agenda.

But this graph is simply a "funny mistake" 

  You really think this was intentional? "Yeah, let's deliberately distort a graph. Nobody will ever call us on it. It's not like there are any liberal outfits that monitor us 24 hours a day, looking for any slipups, are there?"

[Rage Against the McKee]

It has been said that the fact that Time wouldn't mentio the TEA party due to an agenda.

But this graph is simply a "funny mistake" 

No, what's funny is stating that 8.6 is a sharp decline.  

But, I suppose come January when it goes back up to 9.2, that won't be a sharp increase.

At the scale of the graph that Fox News presented, it absolutely would be a sharp increase.

[chum1]

i guess i'm even more confused about why people on either side would think that the placement of the last point shows something significant than i am about why people on either side would think that there is a significant relationship between the president and unemployment rates.  if you're looking at trends, a single point is meaningless.

[06wildcat]

What's amazing is that some don't understand this graphic had to be manually manipulated to create this "mistake". Designers don't freehand graphs for this very reason.

[AppleJack]

Obama bowled a 37 

That's all I got for the politics board 

[chum1]

What's amazing is that some don't understand this graphic had to be manually manipulated to create this "mistake". Designers don't freehand graphs for this very reason.

yeah, this is a first.  tv people always nail this stuff.  i mean, have you seen what the weatherman can do?

[LickNeckey]

I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating.  I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy.  Very odd. 

not obsessed.

don't watch it.

don't really care.

i disagree that there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, MSNBC obviously but most others seem pretty impartial

not sure what Fox has gotten "right" that has made people crazy?

[Cire]

MSNBC doesn't tout itself as being "fair and balanced"? does it? 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< doesn't know, doesn't watch.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Here is the wonderful hotdog.  Please respond.   

[michigancat]

I'm still not 100% sure john dougie understands the first graph.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I'm still not 100% sure john dougie understands the first graph.

 

What I don't understand is why make a big deal about it. The unbiased Excel generated graph is not any less impressive than the erroneous Fox graph.  The change in unemployment is negligible compared to one year ago, as everyone is aware.

[michigancat]

I'm still not 100% sure john dougie understands the first graph.

 

What I don't understand is why make a big deal about it. The unbiased Excel generated graph is not any less impressive than the erroneous Fox graph.  The change in unemployment is negligible compared to one year ago, as everyone is aware.

confirmed

[Dr Rick Daris]

Here is the wonderful hotdog.  Please respond.   

oh man. do one from 0 to 100 now and let's see what it looks like. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Here is the wonderful hotdog.  Please respond.   

oh man. do one from 0 to 100 now and let's see what it looks like. 

That really isn't necessary, rick daris, its plenty unimpressive at 12. But, If I were to make a graph of the actual US unemployment rate, it would need to go above 25. 

http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html

[Rage Against the McKee]

Here is the wonderful hotdog.  Please respond.   

oh man. do one from 0 to 100 now and let's see what it looks like. 

That really isn't necessary, rick daris, its plenty unimpressive at 12. But, If I were to make a graph of the actual US unemployment rate, it would need to go above 25. 

http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html

You realize that the "actual" unemployment rate counts stay-at-home moms as unemployed, right?

[steve dave]

john doug, I don't want to pile on but, woof

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Here is the wonderful hotdog.  Please respond.   

oh man. do one from 0 to 100 now and let's see what it looks like. 

That really isn't necessary, rick daris, its plenty unimpressive at 12. But, If I were to make a graph of the actual US unemployment rate, it would need to go above 25. 

http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html

You realize that the "actual" unemployment rate counts stay-at-home moms as unemployed, right?

Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Here is the wonderful hotdog.  Please respond.   

oh man. do one from 0 to 100 now and let's see what it looks like. 

That really isn't necessary, rick daris, its plenty unimpressive at 12. But, If I were to make a graph of the actual US unemployment rate, it would need to go above 25. 

http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html

You realize that the "actual" unemployment rate counts stay-at-home moms as unemployed, right?

Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.

Why do you want to count people who aren't looking for work? There is nothing negative about somebody deciding to stay at home with the kids instead of going out and pursuing a career. Some people do not need or want a job.

[06wildcat]

What's amazing is that some don't understand this graphic had to be manually manipulated to create this "mistake". Designers don't freehand graphs for this very reason.

yeah, this is a first.  tv people always nail this stuff.  i mean, have you seen what the weatherman can do?

 

[06wildcat]

Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.

JFC you are dumb. Exhausting unemployment benefits doesn't mean you're not counted as unemployed.


Perhaps this will help:

Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed

[Stupid Fitz]

I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating.  I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy.  Very odd. 

not obsessed.

don't watch it.

don't really care.

i disagree that there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, MSNBC obviously but most others seem pretty impartial

not sure what Fox has gotten "right" that has made people crazy?

lol

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Here is the wonderful hotdog.  Please respond.   

oh man. do one from 0 to 100 now and let's see what it looks like. 

That really isn't necessary, rick daris, its plenty unimpressive at 12. But, If I were to make a graph of the actual US unemployment rate, it would need to go above 25. 

http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html

You realize that the "actual" unemployment rate counts stay-at-home moms as unemployed, right?

Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.

Why do you want to count people who aren't looking for work? There is nothing negative about somebody deciding to stay at home with the kids instead of going out and pursuing a career. Some people do not need or want a job.

It would keep politicians from manipulating the true numbers.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.

JFC you are dumb. Exhausting unemployment benefits doesn't mean you're not counted as unemployed.


Perhaps this will help:

Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed

   If you aren't collecting benefits, they don't know you are looking for a job. Notice its "and" , not  "or".  This is an example how the government manipulates the numbers. "Golly gee, we haven't heard from Joe since his bennies ran out, so he must be working!"

[06wildcat]

Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.

JFC you are dumb. Exhausting unemployment benefits doesn't mean you're not counted as unemployed.


Perhaps this will help:

Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed

   If you aren't collecting benefits, they don't know you are looking for a job. Notice its "and" , not  "or".  This is an example how the government manipulates the numbers. "Golly gee, we haven't heard from Joe since his bennies ran out, so he must be working!"

Are you rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)? At 8.6 percent with a workforce of approximately 140 million, there's 12 million people unemployed according to the BLS. There's only 6.7 million people collecting unemployment benefits right now. How the eff did the BLS find those other 5 million people. That or you believe that only 80 million people are in the workforce.

I mean any responsible pollster is going to know that you can only ask people receiving unemployment benefits to answer a survey. Same for political polling. They really only ask registered voters receiving unemployment benefits to participate in those.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.

JFC you are dumb. Exhausting unemployment benefits doesn't mean you're not counted as unemployed.


Perhaps this will help:

Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed

   If you aren't collecting benefits, they don't know you are looking for a job. Notice its "and" , not  "or".  This is an example how the government manipulates the numbers. "Golly gee, we haven't heard from Joe since his bennies ran out, so he must be working!"

Are you rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)? At 8.6 percent with a workforce of approximately 140 million, there's 12 million people unemployed according to the BLS. There's only 6.7 million people collecting unemployment benefits right now. How the eff did the BLS find those other 5 million people. That or you believe that only 80 million people are in the workforce.

I mean any responsible pollster is going to know that you can only ask people receiving unemployment benefits to answer a survey. Same for political polling. They really only ask registered voters receiving unemployment benefits to participate in those.

So you admit it is a shitty way to arrive at an accurate unemployment percentage.