| Topic Name: |
When side-jobs hurt your chances.. |
| Message Name: |
... |
| Date Posted: |
09/01/2004 |
| In Reply To: |
"peter's friend" which part of the word "disagree" is not making it clear?
as i've stated clearly, the article stands for the example given. no on here has put the numbers into context in the way the article suggests... which, if you do, you come up with the same conclusion... begin with 100 professionals employed, and end with 88 professionals employed and an unemployment rate of only 4 percent.
i've invited you to comment on the article as a reader's comment, as of this date you have not. the choice is yours.
|
| Message: |
Your example is made up and has nothing to do with the unemployment rate or nonfarms payrolls. What is the point of showing an example of how people "fall off" the unemployment figures if it has nothing to do with how the unemployment figures are calculated in real life? It??s clear to anyone that reads the article that you thought that the BLS calculated the unemployment rate based upon unemployment benefits which run out after 26 weeks (you say this word for word on your website). To now somehow suggest that it was just some random example is laughable.
You also have not commented on your statements that the EU shows "real unemployment" number (when they really do the samething as BLS). Also, do you still think the "unemployment rate" that the LAT's got from the BLS is at a 20 year high (I had thought the article said 10 but you said 20). How can 9.7% be at a 20 year high when it's be over 10% in the past ten years?
These aren't things that a rational person can disagree on. They aren't normative. There is a right and wrong answer to them:
-Either you still think the LAT's does it's own research and therefore their 9.7% can be at a 20 year high as you say in your article (in which case post a link to where you got this idea from) or you admit that they used the BLS numbers as I showed above (line by line) in which case your article is wrong about it being at a 20 year high.
-Either you still think the countries listed on the right hand side of the article show something different then the BLS (in which case cite your sources) or you don't.
- Either you still believe that: "...those who fail to find a job after 26 weeks fall off BLS statistics." (direct quote from the front page of your website) or you don't. If you still believe this to be true post a link to the BLS website where they talk about it.
Again these aren't things that someone can "disagree" about. There are right and wrong answers. I have posted how you are wrong about them yet you refuse to admit it. I realize it's hard to admit when you're wrong sometimes but continuing to argue when it's clear you are wrong makes you looks foolish.
|
|
