### Bithead strikes out ... again...

**NOTE: Bithead strikes ... out ... again. This bithead is clearly a moron. He forgets to factor in population growth and to look at employment to population ratio when he makes his next boast. Yes there are more jobs than in Jan'01, there are also lots more people. A look at the actual number reveals that the percentage of people who can work as part of the population is down severely, to basically early 1994 levels. Weird. Is this the best that morons like this can come up? Notice his snooty attitude too ... now the oldman has attitude up the whazoo, but then again he doesn't make tyro mistakes like this either!**

Mr Bithead,

You wrote:

"*But I'm "arrogant". Right... got it.
(Snicker)
I've been waiting for this.
I'd like you to go back to the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site and click on the little check box marked “Civilian Employment (Seasonally Adjusted) - LNS12000000” then drop to the bottom of the page and click on the button marked “retrieve data.” *

*... you've apparently never bothered to see if your foundational argument is correct; that there has, in fact actually been a net emplyment loss.*

*There are 776,000 more jobs now than there were in the first month of George Bush’s administration.*"

Which is all to say that this is why statistics in the hands of dummies like you is dangerous. Look Bithead, the population has

**grown**since the first month of GW's tenure. The 776,000 number you quote is at best maybe 4-5 months of historically good growth.

If you want to look at these series why don't you look at not just absolute numbers, but at relative numbers? That's why I used the numbers I did before, they were normed to the population size at the time.

As a matter of fact, try this BLS page and run the time series, seasonally adjusted for participation rate, employed, and employment-population ratio. Then run them in graphs from 1992-2004.

Specifically:

LNS12300000

LNS15000000

LNS11300000

LNS13000000

If you compare your series

LNS12000000

with

LNS15000000

Which is the "not in labor force" you'll see the absolute number of people without a job has grown as well as the people who have jobs. This is your big rebuttal? This is what you've been waiting for? This is your big contradiction?

That the total number of jobs grew a small amount, while the total number of unemployed grew as well -

**all because you forgot to factor in population growth?**

If you look at the

**LNS12300000 Employment to Population Ratio**then you'll see that the number of employed to population has cratered to pre-1995 levels, basically to just above early 1994 levels.

If this is the best you can do bithead, I'm not surprised you call yourself a bithead ... because all the previous numbers are right ... and they included factoring in for changing population by using percentage population comparisons. As a matter of fact, while the absolute number of employed persons increased by 776,000 a look from Jan'01 to Jan'04 reveals that the

**not in labor force number**grew by 5,197,000 in the LNS15000000 series.

So clearly, your 776,000 number is below trend compared to the even standard population growth!!!

You really take the cake with this one ... bithead ... whoever this sean is he really steered you wrong. In other words, if you use this method of analysis ... my numbers are not only reinforced, they come out better!

## 0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home