Posted on 02/17/2012 11:09:00 AM PST by DC Packfan
Rush, please do your math!
Some explanation for some of us who are unable to hear his show???
15 of 20 is 75%. 16 of 20 is 80%. What is the point of this post?
Sorry, listening to Rush use an example to talk about how gov calculates unemployment rate.
Made example saying 5 people have jobs and there are 20 jobs total. Says that leaves 80 percent of jobs not filled. But that leaves 75 percent of jobs not filled.
Posting in realtime, won’t do that anymore!
his point is: did you get the point. The math is nothing.
Rush is trying to explain how, by shrinking the total number of available jobs, the admin is saying that the unemployment rate is going down. Rush is not getting his percentages exactly straight, but he’s making the point.
20 plus the government person doing the counting = 21 rounded off about 75%.
close enough for government work and those of us who work with round numbers.
Besides, he is still 99.7% correct.
/S
Yes, he moves so quickly that he frequently misspeaks, but the overall point should be clear.
I don’t know the history of U3 or U6, but why in HE!! would gov compute unemployment as (1 - (percent of jobs filled))
...instead of (number desiring jobs)/(number of working + number desiring jobs)
And, while we’re on that subject, I suggest that the BLS change their methodolgies also.
He can't do math and over and above that his twisted logic of not counting jobs is flat out wrong.
What the BLS doesn't count is people, not jobs or lack of jobs.
If the US labor force is 100,000,000 and 10,000,000 are unemployed then the rate of unemployment is 10%
The way the BLS cheats is by saying that 2,000,000 quit looking for jobs, so now they claim that only 8,000,000 are unemployed {even though there are still 10,000,000 out of work} so now....SHAZAAM... the new unemployment number is now....TADA... 8%.
Total bullshit but it's what we are being fed by obummer's Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I've emailed this to Rush many times, but when he gets his mind wrapped around an idea, forget it.
This would bring his Correct Rate down to 88.7%, so he will continue to ignore my emails {and I send them into his 24/7 mail box}.
I thank Rush completely missed the point that the caller was making.
He is screwing this up royally. I understand the point he's trying to make, but he's not making it. For several months now, whenever he talks about the unemployment rate and the labor participation rate, he get it all balled up.
The unemployment rate is said to be dropping because so many people are no longer actively looking for work. It's no more complicated than that. If, this month, 1 million new jobs are advertised but none are filled because qualified people aren't available in the towns they're offered, the unemployment rate won't change.
No jobs have been created -- they're just potential jobs.
He goes way off on these long tangents about the number of jobs and he's just confused. He mentioned that he's been told a number of times that he's got it wrong, but, evidently, he's not listening. It's too bad because he's a crucial resource for us.
I heard that and I was with the caller, I don’t get it. Rush was trying to make the unemployment number relate to the number of jobs.
The unemployment rate is the percentage of people willing & able to work but unable to do so.
The number of actual jobs has nothing to do with the unemployment rate other than if there are available jobs, you would expect the unemployed to fill them, unless they have taken themselves out of the pool of willing & able because they are busy waiting for their government handout.
 |
The question turns on why folks have dropped out of the labor force. Is it normal demographic aging? Or have they given up? There is an argument to be made that some of the drop is due to the aging population. But how much?
It's quite clear that, if the same number of folks were looking for work now as were looking when the Won took office, the official unemployment rate would be double digits.
Did the gov’t shrink the number of jobs or the number of people?
I heard this and it was painful.
I heard the segment and I remember thinking: “I don’t ever remember in over 20 years of listening to Rush when he EVER botched an explanation of anything so badly”. You got it right. Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.