Pol. Rammifications of Unemploy Topping 10%

[Brothern]

Apocryphal Libertarian

Brothern

How can they hold where they are at if we are still losing jobs? It's impossible.

Tell you what, put your money where your mouth is and I'll bet 10k that unemployment hits or surpasses 10% for October. Unemployment numbers for October is scheduled to be released next week Friday (the sixth).

Don't you remember how the unemployment rate for July dipped to 9.4%?

Anyway, I'll take that bet, even the pessimistic forecasts don't show us hitting 10% till December.

Drull roll please!

The unemployment rate rose from 9.8 to 10.2 percent in October, and nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline (-190,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The largest job losses over the month were in construction, manufacturing, and retail trade.

...

I win at life, even though AL will probably not see this thread.

[Brothern]

White Wolf of Nebu

Brothern

White Wolf of Nebu

I feel like curb stomping both of you. What are your explanitory variables? WHATS YOUR R SQUARED? HUH?

This.

"In the week ending Oct. 24, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 530,000, a decrease of 1,000 from the previous week's unrevised figure of 531,000. The 4-week moving average was 526,250, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's unrevised average of 532,250."

You fail at life. Lagged Unemployment figures would have next to no explanitory power in current unemployment figures. You don't even have a model. What's your R squared? Standard Errors? Hell do you even have Parameters? If your going to start throwing out mathamtical predictions of unemployment, do it ******** properly. Cause then at least you would be too busy looking for a million different variables and testing them to stop by Gaia and talk out your a**.

... White Wolf, you suck too. That's just an FYI.

[N3bu]

I noticed you forget to specify which country you were talking about, but since that's typical I won't bother. I'll just brag how our unemployment rate is still probably hovering around 6%.

[Brothern]

Oh how the high and mighty have fallen, huh White Wolf?

[N3bu]

Brothern

White Wolf of Nebu

Brothern

White Wolf of Nebu

I feel like curb stomping both of you. What are your explanitory variables? WHATS YOUR R SQUARED? HUH?

This.

"In the week ending Oct. 24, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 530,000, a decrease of 1,000 from the previous week's unrevised figure of 531,000. The 4-week moving average was 526,250, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's unrevised average of 532,250."

You fail at life. Lagged Unemployment figures would have next to no explanitory power in current unemployment figures. You don't even have a model. What's your R squared? Standard Errors? Hell do you even have Parameters? If your going to start throwing out mathamtical predictions of unemployment, do it ******** properly. Cause then at least you would be too busy looking for a million different variables and testing them to stop by Gaia and talk out your a**.

... White Wolf, you suck too. That's just an FYI.

You suck just by failing to understand what I was talking about. I didn't say you wouldn't get lucky, I said your predictions were fail because there was no econometrics behind them.

[N3bu]

Brothern

Oh how the high and mighty have fallen, huh White Wolf?

L 2 Statistic and Economics.

Even a fool can sit in a chair and say s**t about the economy just because the TV says it's true.

[Brothern]

Oh definitely. I certainly could have never EVER figured out that the unemployment was going to top 10% without first typing all my numbers into graphical analysis and finding the coefficient of determination. *rolls eyes*

Nope, never. It ain't possible.

[N3bu]

Brothern

Oh definitely. I certainly could have never EVER figured out that the unemployment was going to top 10% without first typing all my numbers into graphical analysis and finding the coefficient of determination. *rolls eyes*

Because that's totally what they pay economists for! Making vague self-evident predictions based on pure horse s**t. If your going to talk tough about the economy and economic movement, do it right next time.

[BlueCollarJoe]

White Wolf of Nebu

Brothern

Oh definitely. I certainly could have never EVER figured out that the unemployment was going to top 10% without first typing all my numbers into graphical analysis and finding the coefficient of determination. *rolls eyes*

Because that's totally what they pay economists for! Making vague self-evident predictions based on pure horse s**t. If your going to talk tough about the economy and economic movement, do it right next time.

It's not pure horseshit, White Wolf. Yeah, Brothern either pulled this from deep in his a** or he paid attention to the right analyst. But when it comes to predicting unemployment in an economy like we're in right now?
Aside from the standard hard numbers, one must factor in the soft element, because that will start a snowball effect on your unemployment figures. If the media starts an 'economy is still failing' drive, you'll see unemployment go up yet again, too.
If they report it's declining, and do so consecutively, you may see people starting to hire again.
This is fuzzy math, because when you put the human element in it, you don't get hard numbers.

[Lord Cameron]

Don't you mean Archetypal Libertarian?

(I win.)

[Brothern]

White Wolf of Nebu

Brothern

Oh definitely. I certainly could have never EVER figured out that the unemployment was going to top 10% without first typing all my numbers into graphical analysis and finding the coefficient of determination. *rolls eyes*

Because that's totally what they pay economists for! Making vague self-evident predictions based on pure horse s**t. If your going to talk tough about the economy and economic movement, do it right next time.

Oh my God. Did you not read my post the first time around? The one I quoted to you last week?

"In the week ending Oct. 24, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 530,000, a decrease of 1,000 from the previous week's unrevised figure of 531,000. The 4-week moving average was 526,250, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's unrevised average of 532,250."

What does that tell you? It tells you that the rate at which unemployment is increasing has not shifted during the month of October; the economy would continue to lose jobs at the same rate.

Wouldn't you think that the unemployment would go up then? Where in the hell do you think 9.8% goes from there? 9.923391723%?

Now suck it up.

[Mokie7]

Oh hey, look at that. Brothern is celebrating the worsening of America. How unAmerican.

In other news: there are still less unemployed Americans than there are uninsured.

[The Red Herring]

Somehow I'm not entirely surprised this happened... confused

Nebu: No offense, but while econometrics is awesome (and a class I will loathe taking next year), it's fully within the range of people to try to soft judge numbers based around existing trends. I have to agree with Brothern by saying that if he wanted to judge his numbers off the current trend of job losses and estimate that the number wouldn't decrease, he is more then able to.

[N3bu]

BlueCollarJoe

White Wolf of Nebu

Brothern

Oh definitely. I certainly could have never EVER figured out that the unemployment was going to top 10% without first typing all my numbers into graphical analysis and finding the coefficient of determination. *rolls eyes*

Because that's totally what they pay economists for! Making vague self-evident predictions based on pure horse s**t. If your going to talk tough about the economy and economic movement, do it right next time.

It's not pure horseshit, White Wolf. Yeah, Brothern either pulled this from deep in his a** or he paid attention to the right analyst. But when it comes to predicting unemployment in an economy like we're in right now?
Aside from the standard hard numbers, one must factor in the soft element, because that will start a snowball effect on your unemployment figures. If the media starts an 'economy is still failing' drive, you'll see unemployment go up yet again, too.
If they report it's declining, and do so consecutively, you may see people starting to hire again.
This is fuzzy math, because when you put the human element in it, you don't get hard numbers.

Of course you don't get hard numbers. I'm just sick of people pretending to be experts on the economy, yet they're only people who parrot other analysts and somehow think they're hot s**t.

I am not and expert, I admit, but I've done enough of this stuff to know it's a lot harder then the average joe (no pun intended on your name) claims to understand from his couch.

My point against brothern is a general rant against all these kinds of people pooping under in the wake of the last recession. As someone who is putting hard work into understanding what can be at times very complicated stuff, it really pisses me off.

[Mokie7]

White Wolf of Nebu

I'm just sick of people pretending to be experts on the economy

Amen.
Keep in mind, this is the same guy who tried to use "knowledge" of economics to argue the existence of death panels... which he, predictably, failed to do