The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
nimic said:
Does he actually do that anymore? I remember a court ruling it unconstitutional, since his twitter is official communication of the President.
Click to expand...
A number of people since then have said he's blocked them. Whether true or not, I don't know. But since when has a ruling stopped Trump doing whatever the feck he wants?
 
Isn't America drinking water some the worst polluted in the first world? And that's with the Clean Water Act intact? This is scary for a large low income population.
 
Beachryan said:
That's interesting. Hes just kicking the can to next month then, surely?

Why isn't that a bigger deal? It totally changes yesterday's main story. It's like you spend a day celebrating being clear of cancer,, then get a call the doc screwed up, then pretend like you're fine.
Click to expand...

The main story is that the unemployment rate is falling, whatever way you classify it. It's a bit ridiculous that they still can't record the data correctly after 3 months of this, but whether using their flawed classification or the correct classification, the general trend is still the same - millions of people returned to work when most expected millions more to lose their jobs.
 
Damien said:


There's always a tweet


Isn't reporting fake numbers like that stock market manipulation? And then the truth comes out once the stock markets close.
Click to expand...

If the numbers are fake I am guessing the market will correct itself. What is the purpose of reporting fake numbers then?
 
Dr. StrangeHate said:
If the numbers are fake I am guessing the market will correct itself. What is the purpose of reporting fake numbers then?
Click to expand...

They're not fake, they're just a result of interviewers struggling to classify people according to a set of circumstances they're unfamiliar with.

The error is essentially when interviewees say they are currently employed, but are not currently working because of the coronavirus. If they are quarantined or ill, those people are considering employed. If they are not working for any other coronavirus-related reason that week, e.g. they work at a restaurant, but the restaurant isn't open this week because of coronavirus they should be considered unemployed (temporarily laid off). That's not part of their standard process / classification so interviewers just default to the fact they're employed but just absent from work.

In previous years there were about 4m people that were employed but weren't working that particular week, because of things like holidays, personal obligations, illness etc, so when interviewers are classifying people that way at the time they don't think it's that unusual. But when the final numbers come through it's glaringly obvious that the numbers have doubled because they're not classifying things correctly, and as standard procedure the Bureau of Labor statistics don't fiddle with the numbers after they've been collected. They can recognise that their interviewers have made a mistake, and implement procedures to accurately collect the data next time, but they have an absolute rule that they do not adjust the numbers.

9. Household survey: How did the pandemic response impact May estimates?

As highlighted in The Employment Situation news release, household survey total employment rose and unemployment fell in May. These improvements in the labor market reflected a limited resumption of economic activity that had been curtailed in March and April due to the coronavirus pandemic and efforts to contain it. Although unemployment fell in May, the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed people are up by 9.8 percentage points and 15.2 million, respectively, since February. (A full discussion can also be found in the BLS Commissioner's statement on the Employment Situation. See also historical data from the household survey.)

The household survey can identify people who were not at work during the survey reference week for reasons such as their own illness, vacation, or taking care of a family member. Under the guidance provided to the household survey interviewers, workers who indicate that they were not working during the entire reference week due to efforts to contain the spread of the coronavirus should be classified as unemployed on temporary layoff, whether or not they are paid for the time they were off work. (See details in item 8 above.)

Among the unemployed, the number of people on temporary layoff decreased in May, but remained high. However, as happened in April and March, some workers who were not at work during the entire reference week were not classified as unemployed on temporary layoff in May. Rather, they were classified as employed but absent from work. BLS analysis of the underlying data suggests that most of these workers were misclassified; they should have been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. (See details in item 12 below.)

The number of hours some people worked were affected by efforts to contain the pandemic. Employed people who usually work full time (35 hours or more per week) but indicate that they had worked fewer than 35 hours in the reference week because of slack work or business conditions, including those due to pandemic-related closures, are classified as employed part time for economic reasons. (See details in item 15 below.) Other effects can be seen in the number of people at work part time for noneconomic reasons. (See details in item 16 below.)

The number of people not in the labor force who currently want a job fell in May, but remained elevated as the impact of the pandemic likely kept many individuals from engaging in labor market activity. (See details in item 18 below.)
Click to expand...

11. Household survey: How many employed people were not at work during the reference week?

In May, 8.4 million workers were classified as employed with a job but not at work during the survey reference week (not seasonally adjusted). Although lower than the 11.5 million not at work in April, this measure remains about twice the typical level at this time of the year. This likely reflects the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. (See table D on the next page.)

There were many reasons why employed people were not at work for the entire survey reference week. BLS tabulates data on employed people not at work whose main reason for being absent was vacation, own illness, childcare problems, other family or personal obligations, labor dispute, bad weather, maternity or paternity leave, school or training, civic or military duty, and other reasons. Vacation and a person’s own illness are typically the most common reasons people are not at work. (See table E below.) Of the 8.4 million employed people not at work during the survey reference week in May 2020, 1.5 million people were included in the “own illness, injury, or medical problems” category (not seasonally adjusted). This was down from 2.0 million in April, but was larger than the 932,000 that is typical for May in recent years. People who were not at work to care for a sick family member should be counted in the “other family or personal obligations” category. As it had been in April, this measure was within the usual range for May 2016–2019.

In May 2020, 620,000 people were recorded as absent from work because of vacation, essentially unchanged from April. This is about one-third of the number usually recorded in the vacation category for May.

In May 2020, 5.4 million people were included in the “other reasons” category—about two-thirds of the total 8.4 million employed people not at work during the survey reference week (not seasonally adjusted). This is lower than the 8.1 million people not at work for “other reasons” in April, but was substantially higher than the average of 549,000 for May in recent years. As in April, BLS analysis of the underlying data suggests that this group included workers affected by the pandemic response who should have been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. Such a misclassification is an example of nonsampling error and can occur when respondents misunderstand questions or interviewers record answers incorrectly. BLS and the Census Bureau are investigating why this misclassification error continues to occur and are making changes for the June collection. (See item 14 below.)

...

According to usual practice, the data from the household survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain data integrity, no ad hoc actions are taken to reassign survey responses.
Click to expand...

13. Household survey: What would the unemployment rate be if these misclassified workers were included among the unemployed?

If the workers who were recorded as employed but not at work for the entire survey reference week had been classified as “unemployed on temporary layoff,” the overall unemployment rate would have been higher than reported. This kind of exercise requires some assumptions. For example, first one needs to determine how many workers might be misclassified. There were 5.4 million workers with a job but not at work who were included in the “other reasons” category in May 2020, about 4.9 million higher than the average for May 2016–2019. (While this category contains misclassified workers, not every person in this category was necessarily misclassified. The average for recent May estimates was 549,000 employed people with a job not at work for “other reasons.”)

One assumption might be that these additional 4.9 million workers who were included in the “other reasons” category should have been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. If these workers were instead considered unemployed on temporary layoff, the number of unemployed people in May (on a not seasonally adjusted basis) would increase by 4.9 million from 20.5 million to 25.4 million. The number of people in the labor force would remain at 158.0 million in May (not seasonally adjusted) as people move from employed to unemployed but stay in the labor force. The resulting unemployment rate for May would be 16.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted), compared with the official estimate of 13.0 percent (not seasonally adjusted). Estimates of people with a job but not at work are not available on a seasonally adjusted basis, so seasonally adjusted data, such as the unemployment rate mentioned in The Employment Situation news release, are not used in this exercise. (Repeating this exercise, but combining the not seasonally adjusted data on additional people with a job but not at work in the “other reasons” category with the seasonally adjusted estimates reported in The Employment Situation news release yields a similar 3.1 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate for May—or 16.4 percent, compared with the official seasonally adjusted rate of 13.3 percent.)
Click to expand...

https://www.bls.gov/cps/employment-situation-covid19-faq-may-2020.pdf
 
Dumbstar said:
Isn't America drinking water some the worst polluted in the first world? And that's with the Clean Water Act intact? This is scary for a large low income population.
Click to expand...

America is the country where a river actually caught fire once because of the pollution.
 
Brwned said:
They're not fake, they're just a result of interviewers struggling to classify people according to a set of circumstances they're unfamiliar with.

The error is essentially when interviewees say they are currently employed, but are not currently working because of the coronavirus. If they are quarantined or ill, those people are considering employed. If they are not working for any other coronavirus-related reason that week, e.g. they work at a restaurant, but the restaurant isn't open this week because of coronavirus they should be considered unemployed (temporarily laid off). That's not part of their standard process / classification so interviewers just default to the fact they're employed but just absent from work.

In previous years there were about 4m people that were employed but weren't working that particular week, because of things like holidays, personal obligations, illness etc, so when interviewers are classifying people that way at the time they don't think it's that unusual. But when the final numbers come through it's glaringly obvious that the numbers have doubled because they're not classifying things correctly, and as standard procedure the Bureau of Labor statistics don't fiddle with the numbers after they've been collected. They can recognise that their interviewers have made a mistake, and implement procedures to accurately collect the data next time, but they have an absolute rule that they do not adjust the numbers.







https://www.bls.gov/cps/employment-situation-covid19-faq-may-2020.pdf
Click to expand...

You know, ive never once been surveyed so id like to know who they do actually talk to, bit like polling, ive never once been asked my opinion if i like Terrys Chocolate Orange Man.
 
FireballXL5 said:
Going back to the 19th century is the way to go! Someone please put a bullet in the maniac.
Click to expand...
the origins of the current ideology dominating the Republicans is literally about wanting to take America back to the early/mid 19th century.
 
golden_blunder said:
I know a different way that they may silence him after his term is up
Click to expand...
If he starts becoming a negative for the Republicans after he's out (which I'm sure he will), I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he mysteriously dies quite quickly. Hell, might even be an assassination from a 'left-wing nutter' so that the Republicans can really get the positives from him being a martyr while not having to deal with the negatives anymore.
 
MadDogg said:
If he starts becoming a negative for the Republicans after he's out (which I'm sure he will), I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he mysteriously dies quite quickly. Hell, might even be an assassination from a 'left-wing nutter' so that the Republicans can really get the positives from him being a martyr while not having to deal with the negatives anymore.
Click to expand...

I think Trump while vile and grotesque is well loved by the republicans and he embodies their ideal president. Love it or hate it.

So no, I'd say the next republican candidates would take cue from Trump's playbook
 
His actions are akin to an arsonist going from room to room lacing a building with gasoline. He doesn't even care he's not by the door yet; he's itching to throw his lighter on the flammable liquid and have the whole thing go up.
 
'Nobody knows more about f*ck-all than me!'
 
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

Wow! 96% Approval Rating in the Republican Party (and I believe this was before the “GREAT” Jobs Numbers yesterday). Thank you!
Click to expand...
Wow...big deal.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

Piss off.
Click to expand...
Okay. :(
 
Must catch up on Law and Order. Sounds fecking great the way this cnut keeps tweeting about it
 
He's only tweeted about three times today. Must've been his golf day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.