Jump to content

Featured Replies

1 hour ago, Toty said:

fortunately Depend makes sportswear for just such an occasion 

420209cb-3a42-4f9b-a3d9-39a7a51c3497.52343b8c8c3fa476284f33c8962a869a.jpeg

Well if those keep a guys pants from looking like this when he walks around, I'd call that yet another upgrade for America.

FKTjC37WYAMJJaD.jpeg

  • Replies 21.5k
  • Views 595.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • VanHammersly
    VanHammersly

  • While I disagree with Biden trying to save these idiots from themselves, it just proves what a wonderful human being he is. IMO we should encourage Trumpbots to all give each other Covid so they die o

Posted Images

1 hour ago, mr_hunt said:

those work surprisingly well.   i wore one to avengers endgame since that movie was so damn long....2 tinkles & a dump later, it was still comfortable.    

i love them 3,000. :worthy: 

 

 

 

 

That's fine but you do realize they're not intended to be worn as a hat.

17 minutes ago, Toty said:

compare the wives and it's a wash

Neither does anything for me. One is just an average looking woman and the other has a fake plastic look to her

44 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Weird.  I thought all Republicans were MAGA White Racists.  

No. It's all white racists are MAGA. Easy to get confused though.

44 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Weird.  I thought all Republicans were MAGA White Racists.  

No no no. We cleared that up. No one thinks all republicans are MAGA racists. It's just that if you're a white racist, you're definitely voting republican.

the-more-you-know.gif

Just now, Boogyman said:

No. It's all white racists are MAGA. Easy to get confused though.

Beat me to it

No white liberal has ever been a "wayciss" lol lmao. Wait, does this mean you think liberals of other colors are racist or?

Well, his popularity literally can't sink much lower. Might as well try to do a little gun-grabbing from the bottom. 

:lol: 

52 minutes ago, Kz! said:

No white liberal has ever been a "wayciss" lol lmao. Wait, does this mean you think liberals of other colors are racist 

Is that what you think? Because that's pretty stupid.

Wow wow wow.  Republicans are not gonna like this.

On 1/7/2022 at 10:20 AM, The_Omega said:

http://news.trust.org/item/20220107133359-tdq5v

 

The US added 199,000 nonfarm payrolls last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced Friday. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg held a median forecast of 450,000 added jobs. The print reveals hiring slowed in the final weeks of 2021 as coronavirus case counts swung higher and fueled new concerns for the still-incomplete recovery.

November job growth was revised to 249,000 jobs from 210,000, according to the report. The latest count marks the worst month of job creation since December 2020

e25edbf0fddc.gif

 

On 1/7/2022 at 11:59 AM, The_Omega said:

Interesting that this admonishment came once the actual numbers came in low, and not when it was mere speculation that they would be high. But thank God we don’t have posters here obsessively defending all things Pop Pop.

Quote

December, which initially was reported as a gain of 199,000, went up to 510,000. November surged to 647,000 from the previously reported 249,000. For the two months alone, the initial counts were revised up by 709,000. The revisions came as part of the annual adjustments from the BLS that saw sizeable changes for many of the months in 2021.

e25edbf0fddc.gif.5618efff6e8e03dca80c674920d0ee90.gif

On 1/7/2022 at 11:05 AM, ToastJenkins said:

199k 

huge miss

Yeah you sure did miss.

At least we all can agree more jobs is better, right guys?

On 1/7/2022 at 10:20 AM, The_Omega said:

 

On 1/7/2022 at 11:05 AM, ToastJenkins said:

199k 

huge miss in reality

 

On 1/7/2022 at 11:59 AM, The_Omega said:

Interesting that this admonishment came once the actual numbers came in low, and not when it was mere speculation that they would be high. But thank God we don’t have posters here obsessively defending all things Pop Pop.

 

On 1/7/2022 at 12:03 PM, ToastJenkins said:

Even revisions arent going to double it

 

On 1/7/2022 at 7:32 PM, lynched1 said:

Another "big miss" for the jobs report. Wa Wa Waaaaa

:roll: :roll: :roll:

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

 

 

 

 

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Thank God we don't have posters here obsessively rooting for America to fail.

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Thank God we don't have posters here obsessively rooting for America to fail.

Without all these trumpbot self owns, this place would be a thousand percent more boring.

18 hours ago, Boogyman said:

Is that what you think? Because that's pretty stupid.

No argument there.

19 hours ago, Boogyman said:

No. It's all white racists are MAGA. Easy to get confused though.

lol lmao

7 minutes ago, Kz! said:

No argument there.

lol lmao

Read both comments again. Slowly. And if you still come to the same conclusion, ask someone nearby to help explain it to you.

On 1/7/2022 at 9:31 AM, JohnSnowsHair said:

This is based on the labor department, which seems to lag. Take a look at this from the above article:

This is what has been happening every month: the Labor Department releases a "disappointing report", and in the following months there are corrections as more data comes in that revises them steadily up towards original expectations.

The official labor report has become very lagging.

In November the ADP report beat expectations, coming in at 534k when 505k was expected.

The December ADP report doubled expectations.

The Labor Department numbers slowly seem to catch up. 

As a huge payroll firm, ADP can report much more quickly and accurately because unlike the Labor Department they don't have to aggregate data from 100s (1,000s?) of disparate data sources. The caveat is that they are an incomplete picture, because they only represent a subset of the workforce, but it's a very very significant sample and likely to be representative as ADP runs payroll for every vertical.

The fact that unemployment is down while labor participation has either been going up or been flat (Nov -> Dec it was flat) would suggest there are more jobs being created than this Labor Department report is indicating, and that we can expect additional upward revisions of December numbers to be announced in Feb and March.

 

On 1/7/2022 at 10:20 AM, The_Omega said:

 

On 1/7/2022 at 11:05 AM, ToastJenkins said:

199k 

huge miss in reality

 

On 1/7/2022 at 11:22 AM, JohnSnowsHair said:

wait for revised numbers.

the Labor Department lags something terrible.

 

On 1/7/2022 at 11:59 AM, The_Omega said:

Interesting that this admonishment came once the actual numbers came in low, and not when it was mere speculation that they would be high. But thank God we don’t have posters here obsessively defending all things Pop Pop.

 

On 1/7/2022 at 12:03 PM, ToastJenkins said:

Even revisions arent going to double it

 

The BLS also revised its December jobs addition estimate to a whopping 510,000 from its original estimate of 199,000.

 

who could have seen this coming?

shrug-what.gif.b3fa92a96f48ce23c071bb4bbdf73836.gif

 

 

  • Author

Classic Joe. Personable and authentic—hits you right in the feels.

Pretty sure he threw that in there just to wake himself up, and anyone else who was still listening to him.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

Pretty sure he threw that in there just to wake himself up, and anyone else who was still listening to him.

He has to be tired after single handedly creating all those jobs in just a few months. That would exhaust anybody.

  • Author

I'll just leave this right here...

 

JBJobs.thumb.jpeg.6d04d7884030cd963d939609c768e393.jpeg

6 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

 

 

 

 

:roll: :roll: :roll:

The latest is even better.

6 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

 

 

 

 

:roll: :roll: :roll:

There really isn’t an adequate way to encapsulate what the Bureau of Labor and Statistics has done with their reported January jobs result [Main Data Here].   If you want a deep weeds review of the actuarial scheme deployed READ THIS ARTICLE.

In my lifetime of reviewing data and analytics, I have never reviewed a level of statistical manipulation that even comes close to this.  Well, at least not since the 1980’s junk bond valuations used for corporate restructuring and asset removal.  What the BLS produced today will likely go down in the annals of actuarial history as one of the most comprehensively fraudulent manipulations of labor and statistics in history.

BLS-Cooks-Books-1.jpg

In order to get to a point of being able to claim 467,000 job gains last month, the BLS needed to revise four years’ worth of claimed jobs and population data. By subtracting over a million prior jobs from 2021, essentially wiping out the COVID pandemic monthly impact, and by changing the workforce population over the same number of years, the BLS was able to recalculate the current number of people in the workforce and claim 467,000 jobs were recently created.

 

Again, to unpack this effort would require a week of intensive education on statistics.  {Summary Here}

To avoid that complexity, just think of the big picture this way:

In order to claim a nonexistent gain today, you have to change what took place before.

Ex. Your home is worth $1.4 million as of this morning.  Your home is worth $400,000 more today alone. Why? Because your appreciation was stopped for the past year, and you are now comparing January 2022 to December 2020 when your home was worth $1 million.   You need to pretend the $33,000 your home was gaining in value each month never existed.  Instead, your home went from $1 million to 1.4 million in one day, today.

This is, essentially, the methodologic mindset behind the statistical manipulation.

Additionally, again using this actuary example, to justify your current home valuation to a quizzical audience (a potential buyer), the appraiser (BLS) would have to change every previously appraised value of the entire neighborhood – for every comparable that took place in the prior year.  This is akin to changing the population in the workforce statistics.

The problem becomes that once you set this numerical foundation (the number of people working), all subsequent job reports will have to reflect a new position against a higher base.   Without expanded economic activity to support it, future job gains will be lowered because they are going up against a higher baseline, because the entire population of workers has been changed.

We also know that U.S. economic activity is not expanding.

The value of this January BLS report is essentially nil.

All of that said, there is still a macro BLS data point that deserves emphasis.  Remember the timeline CTH shared previously about the economy and employment changing in May and June of 2021?   That date corresponded with the 2021 massive jump in inflation; yet, none of the data being assembled seemed to show it?

Look at the specific timeframe BLS used to drop the majority of their 2021 employment numbers:

BLS-Cooks-Books-1.jpg

 

It is not coincidental the BLS used the last half of the year to remove 2.5 million claimed workers (subsequently the jobs they held).   The COVID excuse, Delta and Omicron waves, are the cover story for this revision.  The BLS now position the workforce as 149.16 million in December – an increase of roughly 6 million workers from the revised 143.0 million in January.

As one person put it, "there’s cooking numbers, and then there’s cast iron skillet deep frying numbers.”

Yup, the BLS has compiled a burnt offering – upon the altar of sacrificing their credibility.

Create an account or sign in to comment