Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » More Unemployment News

More Unemployment News

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Today’s official U3 unemployment rate is 8.2 percent. That, in and of itself, is bad enough. However, if you applied the July, 2009, number to today’s pool of potential workers, the unemployment rate would be above 10 percent. If you applied the 2007 number (when George Walker Bush was president), unemployment would be 11.8 percent. Those figures come from The Wall Street Journal, hardly a bastion of conservatism.

The U3 rate understates the true weakness of the labor market. Regardless of how President Barack Hussein Obama, the government, markets, or Main Street interpret the number, the weakness will make itself known. The official figure used by the Labor Department “leaves out a lot of people who’ve just given up,” said Aparna Mathur, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute. As economists examine the disappointing March, 2012, job numbers, just 120,000 jobs added, well below expectations, some economists say that U6 is the figure people should be focused upon because it includes all of those people who are too discouraged to look for work.

One of the biggest obstacles to an economic recovery has been the problem of long term unemployment. The number of long term unemployed, or those out of work for 27 weeks or more, has risen to 7 million, up from 1 million in 2007. About 43 percent of the 12.8 million Americans officially labeled out of work fall into the category of the long term unemployed, “which is huge, we’ve never seen those kinds of numbers in any recession,” said Aparna Mathur. The long term unemployed problem is reflected in the U6 rate.

Fewer people, as a percentage of the population, are working today. And there are more people who have left the labor force, possibly forever. That means there are fewer people to contribute to economic growth, to pay taxes, and to help the US earn its way out of a $15 trillion debt hole.

What is this thing called the participation rate? It is a measure of the percentage of working age Americans “participating” in the work force; people either with a job or looking for a job. It has been falling since January, 2007, when it was 66.4 percent. It fell to 65.5 percent in July, 2009, and currently is near a 30-year low at 63.8 percent. Why do we care? Because a lower participation rate means a lower U3 rate. Can anyone say, “cook the books“? The Bureau of Labor Statistics no longer considers as unemployed  those workers without jobs who have not looked for work in the past year because they feel no jobs are available.

As a reference, British economist William Beveridge stated that an unemployment rate of 3 percent was full employment. Other economists have provided estimates between 2 percent and 13 percent, depending on the country, time period, and the various economists’ political biases.

But that’s just my opinion.

Powered by

About

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    Warren, I’m almost speechless with your reporting skills.

    You’ve managed to unearth a story that plays in every MSM outlet, print and broadcast, every time a new jobs report is released. I have even heard several variations of this story on NPR.

    But keep up the hard work. You’ll catch up someday.

    By the way the WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch who famously does create bastions of conservatism in his many media outlets. I don’t read the WSJ often enough to opine on the integrity of its editorial neutrality. Some critics have suggested that it has slid to the right. I will bet you dollars to donuts, though, that if it does error, it ain’t gonna be to the left.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    “Those figures come from The Wall Street Journal, hardly a bastion of conservatism.”

    [falls off chair]

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    ALL of what little credibility you have left went out the window with the WSJ remark.

    If you have any readers here at all, it’s only to see what dumb misinformed opinion that you’re going to try to pass of as fact this time.

    BC probably only publishes you because of the number of outraged negative comments you generate, hoping they’ll click on ads in the process.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    What were Bush’s unemployment numbers in 3009 when Obama took office?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    What is this thing called the participation rate? It is a measure of the percentage of working age Americans “participating” in the work force; people either with a job or looking for a job. It has been falling since January, 2007, when it was 66.4 percent. It fell to 65.5 percent in July, 2009, and currently is near a 30-year low at 63.8 percent.

    “Near a 30-year low”? Who was president then? Oh, it was that OTHER America-hatin’ Muslim lib’rul, Ronald Hussein Reagan, the same guy who sold weapons to Iran to finance rebellion in Central America. Now what would Warren say if President Obama were selling arms to Iran for any reason whatsoever? The mind boggles….

    What’s really sad is that you simply don’t get how much you’re embarrassing yourself, Warren.

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    Since you are cub reporter, I thought that I would give you a few tips.

    1) As I hinted in the previous comment, the article looses credibility when provocative assertions are glaringly false. Not me, of course, but the “conservative bastion” statement might lead some readers to infer that the author believes, out of hand, that all newspapers are biased to the left.

    We can learn from accomplished journalists like Geraldo Rivera. He is woefully ignorant, yet, he has a great career because he has learned how to disguise his ignorance. Your question is, “What can I do to improve my credibility?”

    2) When you use Barack “Hussein” Obama’s full name, you are making a statement of belief about the president. There is no reason to (connotatively)inform the reader that the author may be predisposed to blinding prejudices and biases. A good journalist makes their audience work for that understanding. It’s more engaging that way.

    3) “Regardless of how President Barack Hussein Obama, the government, markets, or Main Street interpret the number, the weakness will make itself known.” Surprisingly, there are a large number of readers who cannot fully appreciate the inconceivable web of conspiracies that a half-black Hawaiian with a scary name is able to perpetrate on our country. (A conspiracy so vast and effective that Fox News, the WSJ, virtually every professional media outfit, the CIA, FBI, Arizona Sheriffs and even Donald Trump has been unable to produce a piece of credible evidence of our presidence’s alleged malfeasances.) This is an implied conclusion that is neither introduced as an argument nor is there any any corresponding support. To a reader that knows how to read, it risks appearing like an irrational injection of an opinion that has nothing to do with the story.

    Here’s a great trick that will help you. It is always best to introduce an emotional non-sequitur in the conclusion. Most readers will have lost track of the thesis by this time anyway and with a little decoration, it even might look relevant.

    Good Luck

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Gee Liberal Ronald Reagon had higher unemployment than Obama.

    Jimmy Carter (D) 1977 7.1%
    Jimmy Carter (D) 1978 6.1%
    Jimmy Carter (D) 1979 5.8%
    Jimmy Carter (D) 1980 7.1%
    Arab Oil crisis-Iran hostages
    —————–
    Ronald Reagan (R) 1981 7.6%
    Ronald Reagan (R) 1982 9.7%
    Ronald Reagan (R) 1983 9.6%

    Ronald Reagan (R) 1984 7.5%
    Ronald Reagan (R) 1985 7.2%
    Ronald Reagan (R) 1986 7.0%
    Ronald Reagan (R) 1987 6.2%
    Ronald Reagan (R) 1988 5.5%
    —————–
    George Bush I (R) 1989 5.3%
    George Bush I (R) 1990 5.6%
    George Bush I (R) 1991 6.8%
    George Bush I (R) 1992 7.5
    —————–
    Bill Clinton (D) 1993 6.9%
    Bill Clinton (D) 1994 6.1%
    Bill Clinton (D) 1995 5.6%
    Bill Clinton (D) 1996 5.4%
    Bill Clinton (D) 1997 4.9%
    Bill Clinton (D) 1998 4.5%
    Bill Clinton (D) 1999 4.2%
    Bill Clinton (D) 2000 4.0%

    Gee, I miss Bill Clinton
    —————–
    George Bush II (R) 2001 4.7%
    George Bush II (R) 2002 5.8%
    George Bush II (R) 2003 6.0%
    George Bush II (R) 2004 5.5%
    George Bush II (R) 2005 5.1%
    George Bush II (R) 2006 4.6%
    George Bush II (R) 2007 4.6%
    George Bush II (R) 2008 5.8%
    Banks and mortgage crash
    —————–
    Barack Obama (D) 2009 9.3%
    Barack Obama (D) 2010 9.6%
    Barack Obama (D) 2011 8.9%

  • Igor

    Warren displays his obtuseness: “…The Wall Street Journal, hardly a bastion of conservatism.”

    WSJ abandoned all pretense and became an open propaganda organ 30 years ago, for any business that suborned it, and especially to the business community in general.

    They ARE a bastion of the Radical Right.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Well you have to remember Igor that Warren probably thinks that Fox News is hardly a bastion of conservatism.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Don’t jump to judge Obama on that jump between Bush and Obama
    Here’s a month by month assessment.

    George Bush 2008
    Jan-5.0
    Feb-4.9
    Mar-5.1
    Apr-5.0
    May-5.4
    Banks start failing and foreclosures start
    Stock market begins to tank
    June-5.6
    July-5.8
    August-6.1
    Sept-6.1
    Oct-6.5
    Nov-6.8
    Dec-7.3
    2009
    Jan-7.8
    Obama inaugurated
    Feb-8.3
    Mar-8.7
    Apr-8.9
    May-9.4
    June-9.5
    July-9.5
    Aug-9.6
    Sept-9.8
    Oct-10.0
    Nov.9.9
    Dec-9.9
    2010
    Jan-9.7
    Feb-9.8
    Mar-9.8
    Apr-9.9
    May-9.6
    June-9.4
    July-9.5
    Aug-9.6
    Sept-9.5
    Oct-9.5
    Nov-9.8
    Dec-9.4
    2011
    Jan-9.1
    Feb-9.0
    Mar-8.9
    Apr-9.0
    May-9.0
    June-9.1
    July-9.1
    Aug-9.1
    Sept-9.0
    Oct-8.9
    Nov-8.7
    Dec-8.5
    2012
    Jan-8.3
    Feb-8.3
    Mar-8.2 Which is where it was when he took office.

    Stock Market when Bush took office – Dow – 10,578.24
    Stock Market when Obama took office – Dow – 8,212.49
    Stock Market after 4 years of Obama – Dow – 13,032.75

    Considering the damage that the economy took under Bush, that’s saying something that he did this much repair.

    But then again I forgot it’s only Obama’s fault when stocks fall and unemployment rises.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    National debt when Bush took office – $144.5 billion
    National debt when Bush left office – $962.0 billion

    Where were your screaming articles during this Warren???

    In 2008 Bush responded to the early signs of economic problems with lump-sum tax rebates and other stimulative measures in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. I remember it because I had to give it back out of that year’s refund check! In March 2008, Bear Stearns, a major US investment bank heavily invested in subprime mortgage derivatives, began to go under. Rumors of low cash reserves dragged Bear’s stock price down while lenders to Bear began to withdraw their cash. The Bush administration found a way to bend the rules and the Federal Reserve funneled an emergency loan to Bear through JP Morgan Chase.

    How??????

    As an investment bank, Bear could not borrow from the Fed but JP Morgan Chase, a commercial bank, could.

    The Fed ended up brokering an agreement for the sale of Bear to JP Morgan Chase that took place at the end of March. In July, IndyMac went under and had to be placed in conservatorship. In the middle of the summer it seemed like recession might be avoided even though —high gas prices— threatened consumers and credit problems threatened investment markets, but the economy entered crisis in the fall. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also put under conservatorship in early September.

    A few days later, Lehman Brothers began to falter. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who in July had publicly expressed concern that continuous bailouts would lead to moral hazard, decided to let Lehman fail. The fallout from Lehman’s failure snowballed into market-wide panic. AIG, an insurance company, had sold credit default swaps insuring against Lehman’s failure under the assumption that such a failure was extremely unlikely.

    Without enough cash to pay out its Lehman-related debts, AIG went under and was nationalized. Credit markets locked up and catastrophe seemed all too likely. The Bush administration proposed providing liquidity to financial markets by having the government buy up debt related to bad mortgages with a Troubled Asset Relief Program.

    Throughout the crisis, Bush kept a low public profile on the issue with his most significant role being a public television address where he announced that a bailout was necessary otherwise the United States “could experience a long and painful recession.”

    Read that last paragraph again Warren. Bush didn’t describe it as a short problem that the flick of a financia switch could instantly fix, he said that the damage that had been done to the economy by his administration would take a long and painful time to fix.

    On January 1 2008 under Bush the Dow Jones was at 13,043.98
    By December 31, 2008 under Bush the Dow Jones was at 8776.39

    Did you write an article about that Warren?

    FACTS Warren-not slanted opinions, verifiable FACTS.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    In January 2008 the dow was at 13,043.98

    Through 2008 as the market tumbled, retirement funds vanished, values of homes fell, values of busniess fell, gas prices climbed and unemployment grew due to the stock market tanking.

    In mid-January when Obama took office the market had fallen to 8212.49 after destroying people who took Bush’s bad advice and invested in the stock market instead of social security, and 401ks died.

    BUT LOOK!

    Right now the Dow Jones is at… 13032.75???

    Right back where it was at the start of the Bush stock market crash when it was at…
    13,043.98.

    He fixed the stock market in only one term!

    Facts Warren Facts

  • Baronius

    It’s common knowledge – at least I thought it was – that the WSJ leans left in reporting, right in editorials. Different staff, different beliefs. It’s not rare to find columnists and reporters exchanging points and counterpoints over multiple days between the front page and editorial page. This is such common knowledge that I’m a little embarrassed for the commenters here who wrote otherwise.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Walker “Liberal Bias” Dreadful

    That’s a bizarre statement, Baronius. It’s clearly not “common knowledge” or there wouldn’t be the amount of scoffing at Warren that there has been.

    Nor is it apparently “common knowledge” to this staff writer at Forbes – hardly a bastion of liberalism. ;-)

    I can only surmise that you were thinking of this media bias study published in 2005, which found the news pages of the WSJ to be the most left-leaning.

    Three points about that finding:

    1. 2005 was long before the paper’s takeover by Murdoch.
    2. When we think of a newspaper’s political leanings, we are usually thinking of its editorial stance – not its straight news reporting, which we expect to be fair and impartial.
    3. The results of an academic study are not common knowledge, unless they have been replicated many times. For example, it is common knowledge that heredity is controlled by genes, but it is not common knowledge that hummingbirds make a mental map of the flowers they visit.

    (I have a dead tree citation of that last one somewhere, but no idea if it’s available online.)

  • Igor

    #13-Baronius: I’m astounded that you’d say WSJ leans left on reporting! Why? Why would any reporter do that? Why bite the proverbial hand?

    Do you have any evidence?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Igor –

    But that’s part of the Sacred Dogma of Conservatism – all MSM except for the Apostolic Fox News is liberally biased…and this cannot be questioned no matter how much the evidence shows otherwise.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Guys, this again goes back to what we were talking about on Dave’s “Texas Republicans” thread yesterday.

    The very approach of “straight news” reporting, with its Democratic-Representative-Smith-said-this-but-Republican-Representative-Jones-said-that methodology, is fair and balanced from a liberal perspective but is already suspect to conservatives before anything is written at all.

    We all expect facts and truth from our newspapers: but conservatives, because it is in their nature to have conviction, already know what the facts and truths are: theirs.

    Any contrary opinion or information that gets reported is therefore indicative of bias on the part of the reporter.

  • Baronius

    “When we think of a newspaper’s political leanings, we are usually thinking of its editorial stance – not its straight news reporting, which we expect to be fair and impartial.”

    Who cares about its editorial stance, or the politics of the owner? They have nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of a paper. A medium’s staff is hired either from a competitor or straight from journalism school, and the hiring is done by the desk editors – not the editorial staff. That’s why Igor is wrong. It’s not biting the hand that feeds you.

    Dread’s comment #17 is poisoning the well, or poisoning the straw man, or something, because that’s not the argument I’m making at all. You guys have gotten a little lazy around BC.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    I know it wasn’t the argument you were making, Baronius, nor was that argument what I was addressing in my #17.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    All that posting and research for nothing… why do I bother?

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Yes, let’s keep up the conversational bait-and-switch about whether or not WSJ is left or right leaning instead of his bullshit about unemployment and how Barack didn’t keep his promise to hold it as steady as he could and how he said at inauguration that it would be a long slow recovery, or how the damage couldn’t be fixed in one term by ANY president, the bullshit about how the economy is still tanking instead of recovering.

    Was 7-10-11-12 done in invisible ink that only I can see?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Jet, Warren’s bullshit was egregious, I grant you, but his claim about the WSJ was not just egregious, it was breathtaking.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    That’s why I stuck to his falsified facts… to keep from giggling to death (:p

  • Igor

    #16-Glenn: I’m astounded that wily old pirate Rupert Murdoch would clutch a viper to his breast.

  • Baronius

    This is pretty funny. Warren’s running rings around you guys and you don’t realize it. You say that the right won’t accept what is true when it’s written in an article, but you guys have refused to talk about the facts that Warren put in his article (except for the first comment, which denounced Warren for citing things that are too obvious). A lot of what Warren writes is nutty, sure, but that doesn’t mean that you’ve been the least bit effective in rebutting this article.

  • Igor

    #18-Baronius: that’s hilarious!


    A medium’s staff is hired either from a competitor or straight from journalism school, and the hiring is done by the desk editors – not the editorial staff.

    You really ARE naive about business, aren’t you?

  • Igor

    #20-Jet: I appreciate it; keep it up. Your work is an antidote to the gossamer theories of Some Folks.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Baronius, Warren sets forth his opinions about facts… not facts.

  • Igor

    #25-Baronius: I gave up reading Warrens ‘nutty’ writing some time ago, after a succesion of disappointments, and now I just give it a quick try every month or so. When he’s got a few meritorious articles/comments underway I’ll give him another try.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beaty

    Re: comments #1 – 4, there was, at the time these comments made, a problem, and the complete article was not available. Yet that did not stop commenters from posting. Read the complete article? Why bother.

    And y’all talk about my credibility.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    @ #25:

    Well, Baronius, I can’t speak for the other guys, but personally I felt that since this is essentially the same article Warren wrote when last month’s unemployment figures came out, and the month’s before that, I didn’t feel there was much to be said this time.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Comments 7-10-11-12 Warren, you didn’t read them… I’m hurt but not surprised (:p~~~~~

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Re:31 Usually during reruns, I put the picture-in-picture on and go channel surfing

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    @ #30: Warren, with my editor’s hat on, I spotted the glitch in your article (an HTML coding error) and fixed it.

    Then, with my reader’s hat on, I finished reading and posted my comment.

  • Bloodsport

    I thoroughly enjoyed Warren’s article. I only laughed twice on the first page and three times on the second.

    I found it quite amusing, then again southerners often are.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Who edited it with a glitch? Not Mr. Perfect I hope?

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beaty

    About my comment about the WSJ, doubters may find this source interesting – or not. It is by Jim Clark, President, Republican Advocates, and discusses Dr. Tim Groseclose’s MSM evalution methodology. And guess what his research found: excluding editorials and opinions, the most liberal was (gasp!) the Wall Street Journal (85.1), followed by the New York Times (73.7) tied with CBS Evening News (73.7).

    So I think all of y’all owe Baronius an apology.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beaty

    Re: comment # 34, Doc, thanks. I just looked at the article and cannot see the HTML error. Can you help me?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    You can’t see it because I fixed it!

    IIRC, you didn’t place a closing quote mark after the target=”_blank bit of your “cook the books” link.

  • http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/food-and-wine/trends/trends-features/you-eat-meat-so-why-not-blood-chefs-strive-to-warm-up-diners-to-the-red-stuff/article2204999/ Bloodsport Chef Hussein?

    I’m off to make my big biscuit dinner

    Bake a standard 3-pound meatloaf in a standard 12 inch round casserole bowl
    While it bakes, mix up enough bisquick mix to make a 12-inch pizza shell
    Let the meatloaf cool and slice it in half horizontally like a cake
    After cleaning the casserole bowl, line it with parchment paper.
    Place the bottom half of the meat on the flattened smooth pizza dough.
    On top of the meat add green peppers, onion slices to taste, a little spaghetti sauce and layer on Velveeta and provolone cheese
    Place the top half of the meatloaf over it and add more cheese to taste.
    Seal the whole thing up with the dough so that it completely covers it with no leaks.
    Place it on parchment lined casserole bowl.
    Bake at 375 for 20 minutes until golden brown.
    Present it to your family and say you didn’t have time to shop today so all they’re getting is a big biscuit and some salad.
    Savor the smell when it is cut into and the cheese starts oozing out.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    I don’t know about you guys but I’m off to the grocery store!

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    I expect a book report on 7-10-11-12 when I return Warren or you get no dessert.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    You will note that Baronius is still trying to divert attention from comments 7-10-11-12 too… because he can’t argue with Obama’s succeeding in keeping this country from falling even further (which is where it was heading under Bush) into financial disaster.

    Facts are facts Gentlemen

    Unemployment suffered a tailspin, that Obama was able to correct before it hit the ground, with unemployment figures that Reagan bested (see the figures-they don’t lie) but no hate articles are written about that are they Baronious… Warren?

    Obama dragged the stock market out of the gutter too to equal what it was before Bush-caused crash levels that destroyed 401Ks and retirement funds that republican’ts conned them into investing in as an alternative to Social Security.

    FACTS and figures
    Not
    opinions of facts and figures.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    That was a quick grocery store trip, mate, considering you live on the 9th floor, your heart runs on Duracell and you have legs made of Lego.

    They don’t call you “Jet” for nothing, do they? :-)

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    I guess a better idea would be to go over to Bloodsport’s for dinner

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Warren @ #37: That was the study I referenced in my response to Baronius in comment 14.

    As I noted to Baronius, I have a number of reservations about that finding. Another, that I didn’t mention, is Groseclose’s inexplicable decision to use newspapers’ reporting of think tank utterances as a measure of bias, when they could just as easily be a measure of which interest groups were yelling loudest at the time, the proportion of liberal-oriented vs. conservative-oriented think tanks that happened to exist related to the particular issue being reported, Groseclose’s own personal bias as to what constitutes a liberal vs. a conservative think tank, and the possibility that there are just more liberal think tanks around anyway, since liberals like to weigh options as opposed to conservatives who have less patience with intellectual navel-gazing and like to just get things done.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Anyone who’s bored: Dr Groseclose has a “Political Quotient” test on his website, wherein you are asked a series of questions about how you would have voted on key pieces of recent legislation and then given a score based on how you line up against prominent members of Congress.

    Mine turned out to be most closely aligned with Harry Reid and Joe Lieberman (the Mk. I, pre-2006 version), both of whom I think are berks. Should I be worried?

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beaty

    Re: comments # 7 and # 10, Jet, in case you didn’t notice, my article was about the deficiency of the U3 figure, what it omits Yet you persist in providing U3 figures. So that makes your comments exactly what they are worth: nothing!

    Re: comments # 10, # 11, and # 12, Jet, who, besides you, said anything about the Dow-Jones Average? Again, that makes your comments exactly what they are worth: nothing!

    You say, “National debt when Bush took office – $144.5 billion, National debt when Bush left office – $962.0 billion”

    Let’s put it this way: National debt when Obama took office – $962.0 billion, National debt now under Obama – $15 trillion

    How do you know that I did not scream about Bush’s debt actions? Where are your screaming articles during Obama’s actions Jet???

    Re: comment # 31, Doc, you are correct, but I do find y’all Kool-Aid drinkers’ defense/repeat (or is rerun) of U3 to be quite humorous.

    Re: comment # 35, Bloodsport, welcome to the party. I’m glad I gave you a laugh. Now, you can join all the other Kool-Aid drinkers, the commenters who NEVER directly address the issue being discused, on the far left.

    Re: comment # 39, Doc, I looked at my ORIGINAL article and can see nothing wrong with my “cook the book” link. Perhaps a copying error?

    Re: comment # 46, Doc, Groseclose has a REAL doctorate, not something personally made up. And yet you question his methodology. Talk about hubris!

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    Baronius, maybe I was too subtle.

    There is no debate over the article because it doesn’t say anything. Therefor, it would be meaningless, to challenge with an argument the non-argument that it contains. Warren latched on to a stray bit of information which might have been useful or interesting in a thoughtful, well reasoned argument for… anything, That article, however, was beyond his abilities. Because of his hardwired beliefs, he knew that, somehow, this could be used against Obama but couldn’t muster more than a poorly articulated passing insinuation.

    The article’s only significance, however, is that Warren accidentally left his own mic on, so to speak, and what he said goes to the heart of the liberal frustration. His comment, “…hardly a bastion of conservatism” betrays a bias against the MSM that is completely disconnected from reality and void of any self awareness for his own biases and hypocrisy.

    I tried to make a snarky/humorous comment earlier but truth is it’s getting harder and harder to laugh about it.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beaty

    Re: comments # 49, Frivolous D., first, who died so that now you are the writing expert? And I don’t see you writing any articles so I and Baronius can make snarky comments

    You say, “Because of his hardwired beliefs, he knew that, somehow, this could be used against Obama but couldn’t muster more than a poorly articulated passing insinuation.” Hardwired beliefs, indeed. Are you saying that U3 provides a better economic picture than U6? Is that your hardwired belief? If so, then it is you that “couldn’t muster more than a poorly articulated passing insinuation.”

    You continue, “His comment, “…hardly a bastion of conservatism” betrays a bias against the MSM that is completely disconnected from reality and void of any self awareness for his own biases and hypocrisy.” All I can do is refer you to comment # 37 and my last remark in comment # 48. So, Frivolous D., does that mean that you are “completely disconnected from reality and void of any self awareness for his own biases and hypocrisy.”

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    And I don’t see you writing any articles so I and Baronius can make snarky comments

    Perhaps I can help. Frivolous D writes for Blogcritics under the name Andrew Ratzsch. He only has one article under his belt so far but I’m sure he will welcome both your thoughts.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren is right! We ARE disconnected from reality – HIS reality, the one custom-made and delivered to him by Fox News wherein he can (without getting laughed at) safely believe that Obama’s an openly-practiced Muslim who wasn’t born in America, climate change has nothing to do with the billion-plus cars in the world spewing out 20 pounds of CO2 for every gallon of gas they burn, and all the MSM has a lib’rul bias (except for Fox News, of course).

    Warren, I really do wish you had the courage to actually listen to BOTH sides of the story instead of just doing the bobble-head dance to the words of Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly. But that takes the emotional courage that comes with mastery over your own wants, desires, and beliefs…and you ain’t got it.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    I looked at my ORIGINAL article and can see nothing wrong with my “cook the book” link. Perhaps a copying error?

    Perhaps. It could have happened at the editing stage, particularly if you didn’t code your links to open in new windows (the target=”_blank” part of the code), which the editors almost always add in as that is the BC standard – we don’t want readers navigating away from the site, after all!

    Groseclose has a REAL doctorate, not something personally made up. And yet you question his methodology. Talk about hubris!

    I’m a thinking person and may question anything I wish, whether it is the methodology of a PhD or not. Rather than take refuge behind an appeal to authority, perhaps you should address my reservations and explain why they are unfounded, if indeed they are.

    Nor am I the only one to have expressed skepticism about Groseclose’s findings. Not by a long chalk.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    I just tuned into BBC America and caught the episode where they shot cars down into a quarry using an air cannon aimed at a huge dart board painted at the bottom.

    Half way through they put a caravan in the middle of it and kept missing it.

    God, I haven’t laughed that hard since I read this article.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    BBC’s top gear has a different personality than the U.S. version on The History Channel, but I love both equally for different reasons.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Sounds more like an episode of Mythbusters than Top Gear.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Nope, I love BBC America, it introduced me to Life on Mars and Top Gear, Are You Being Served and of course Black Adder.

    They had three cars each as “darts” and had to see who could get the top score, and of course a volvo took out the caravan on the last shot. I couldn’t stop laughing.

    They did one a few years back where the Brits actually came over here and bought junkers and drove all over the south trying to provoke rednecks.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Top Gear has been running for decades in the UK, but I remember it as a rather staid, modest magazine/review programme about the latest in the world of motoring.

    It’s been revamped more thoroughly than just about any other show I can think of.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Watch the History Channel version, it’s still about cars, but the three personalities up against each other in challenges is nonstop laughs.

    The BBC version that featured rocker Alice Cooper was great.

  • ST Y’all M

    Lol. The WSJ is hardly a bastion of conservatism. Its editorial staff might be liberal-leaning, but they’re bound by a code of ethics to report the facts without bias. Believe it or not, Rupert Murdoch doesn’t exercise editorial control over his publications in regard to that aspect of how the news is reported.

    In regard to the op ed pages, leader and opinion pieces are written by people with – gasp – opinions. In many Murdoch publications, they will be of a conservative bent, and on others not (believe it or not).

    Murdoch is a newspaper proprietor. He leaves the day to day running of his newspapers to editors and editorial staff, some of whom have opinions that might regularly differ from his.

    But it’s doubtful that an erstwhile business organ like the WSJ won’t have conservative opinion expressed as … yep, opinion.

    The key to newspaper success – and Rupert’s had more than most – is knowing your target audience.

    Opinion is opinion, not fact. Something Warren hasn’t worked out yet.

    Oh, in case anyone wants to take me to task in regard to my opinions on Rupert Murdoch’s publications, I really do know what I’m talking about.

    And Baronius, you are wrong about how newspapers hire editorial staff and who does the hiring.

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    I haven’t been avoiding THC’s Top Gear but neither have I been able to catch it often. If it even comes close to the BBC’s Top Gear (one of my ranking favorite shows) it should be good.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    In many Murdoch publications, they will be of a conservative bent, and on others not (believe it or not).

    That’s true, and they can change, too, according to the political expediencies of the day. Whatever is going to sell papers.

    A famous case in point being the traditionally right-wing British tabloid The Sun, which went from being a loyally Thatcherite, red-bashing rag to Tony Blair fan club newsletter the second it became clear that there was no way in hell its largely working-class readership was going to vote John Major – a Conservative prime minister so out of touch he made Mitt Romney look like George Clooney – in for a second term.

    Given that complaining about the government is the national sport, the paper went straight back to being right-wing again before Blair had even had a chance to wipe his shoes on the Downing Street doormat.

    But quite why Warren thinks that voicing liberal opinions would be a selling point for the WSJ’s highly conservative readership is a mystery.

  • zingzing

    i don’t read the wsj with any regularity, but its editorial page is usually somewhat conservative, although i have seen the other side get some inches on the page. it’s been too long since i’ve read the rest of the paper to really get a grip on its leanings. i’d have to say that the article warren references tries to keep politics out of it, although the point it’s making is inevitably political. that said, the wsj has its own history that murdoch probably doesn’t have much effect on. and stm is right, knowing your audience (and pandering to them,) is key to a successful publication. being that the wsj’s audience is big business and finance, they are going to lean to the right. maybe i’m wrong, but weren’t they the one that was marking their editorials as right and left for a while? are they still doing so?

    i do read another murdoch publication, the new york post, and that thing runs completely conservative, from the opinion pages to the headlines, even down to their smattering of comics. of course, that thing’s a rag and not quite subject to any degree of journalistic integrity. even the society columnist is right wing. all their columnists are right wing. israel is always in the right. as far as i understand it, it’s been that way for years, long before murdoch put his puss all over it, but i never read the things before i moved here, and i don’t see why i’d ever read the thing if i ever moved. i don’t even know why i read the thing now. it’s horrible.

    it’s funny, but i see the wsj less here than i did in other cities i’ve lived in. it’s not carried at the bodegas around where i live. they have the times, the post and new york daily news (which is another tabloid style publication, but it is centrist and therefore boring), and a couple spanish-language papers.

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    Warren, re #50, no-one has to die. Actually, public universities by made me a “writing expert.” (Heavily subsidized by your taxes – thanks)

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    And Re: comment # 37…

    The study you cite was produced in 2004 and Rupert Murdoch bought the WSJ in 2007 so give that the paper is under new ownership & management, the study, vis-a-vis the WSJ, is obsolete.

    Even so, regarding the quality of the study, the methodolgiy of Groseclose & Milyo have been widely criticized by their academic peers, not simply naysayers. The first problem is that the study ranked news organizations as being either liberal or conservative relative to each other. This by itself is a flaw because the data collection set chosen will have a median that determins an organization as either liberal or conservative. Now stay with me because this is important. If you rate Fox News as less conservative than The National Review, that still does not make Fox liberal. It simply make them less conservative. Groseclose and Milyo didn’t even do thier own data collection. Rather, they (ADA Scores) from the American for Democratic Action whose definition of liberal included The Rand Corporation. (I dare you to try and spin this as an accurate label). Not only is the relativistic ranking a flawed methodology, they are use aguably flawed data.

    It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a resercher can produce a study that is independent of their personal bias. I’ve even had a few professors show us their own research that contradicts their own thesis. That said, it is worth noting, that both Groseclose & Milyo describes themselves as staunch conservatives. In fact, Groseclose cites Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, and Dick Cheney as his political heroes. In the context that their study put the NYT as right of the WSJ, an inversion that no other study was able to duplicate, it is reasonable to ask the question of whether unwittingly or intentionally, their personal political identifications interfered with their academic judgement.

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    And I don’t see you writing any articles so I and Baronius can make snarky comments

    I think you mean to say “Baronius and I.”

    And it is true that I have a measly 500+/- words published with a BC byline as Andrew Ratzsch. You’d love it. Check it out: Nick Gillespie Panics Over Helicopter Parents

    Meanwhile, I am working on additional articles but, as we both know, this requires a substantial amount of research and revisions in order to ensure a well reasoned thesis that is presented clearly with attention to a logical flow of ideas and properly researched assertions.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Friv: …ensure a well reasoned thesis that is presented clearly with attention to a logical flow of ideas and properly researched assertions.

    There are waaaay too many words over 5-letters long for him to comprehend you fool!

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    @ Jet, I can dream, can’t I?

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    Warren – I did a “mark-up” of your article for you:

    In an election year, it is especially important that we remain vigilant for the realities behind claims made by the candidates. (The inclusive “candidates” engenders a spirit of fair-mindedness that may help to predisposing them to listing to a your thesis that may conflict with their politics.) I will confess that, overall, I’ve been underwhelmed with President Obama’s performance and I give him particularly low marks on for his economic record. (This confession will impart in you the appearance of honesty despite potential “differences.”) I can already hear the liberal blood pressure rising, waving the recent jobs report like a magic wand while bragging about the “low” 8.3% unemployment rate (which is, for its own sake, shockingly un-bragworthy). That said, the figure may, in fact, also be a gross under-representation of reality.

    (Be patient and lay off of Obama for now. That’s what conclusion are for. After all, would you buy a watch without first taking a good look at it?)

    According to an article that recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the unemployment figure cheerfully brandished by Obama grossly misrepresents the reality. (Now we can use your words with a few edits.) The official figure used by the Labor Department “leaves out a lot of people who’ve just given up,” said Aparna Mathur, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute. As economists examine the disappointing March, 2012, job numbers, just 120,000 jobs [were] added, well below expectations.

    (cont. next post)

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    (relocate paragraph – analysis in the body) [The participation rate] is a measure of the percentage of working age Americans “participating” in the work force; [that is that it only counts] people with a job or [people] looking for a job. It has been falling since January, 2007, when it was 66.4 percent. It fell to 65.5 percent in July, 2009, and currently is near a 30-year low at 63.8 percent. (omit “Why do we care? The question becomes evident in conclusion) A lower participation rate means a lower U3 rate [which is?] ( Always define jargon.) (Delete “Can anyone say, “cook the books”” again, save editorial snark for the conclusion – unless really clever. But this one isn’t clever. Also, “cooking the books” is actually accounting embezzlement.) The Bureau of Labor Statistics no longer considers as unemployed those workers without jobs who have not looked for work in the past year because they feel no jobs are available. [This is why the 8.3 figure is artificially low an misrepresents true unemployment.] (cont. next post)

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    (and finally)

    One of the biggest obstacles… there are fewer people to contribute to economic growth, to pay taxes, and to help the US earn its way out of a $15 trillion debt hole. (Keep both paragraphs except the the sentance noted below.)

    [Now you can explain to your readers, with clever wit and nuanced snark, why Obama is running his record on a deciet.]

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    Omit from article all of the following:

    “…hardly a bastion of conservatism.” If everyone is talking about this and not your thesis, you’ve already lost the debate.
    “The U3 rate… labor market” Undefined term, out of context assertion.
    “Hussein” Shorthand for “I hate Obama” If you are trying to be persuesive, there is no reason to risk alienating your audience. If you don’t care, then you are just mastrabating, not writing. Looking angry and ignorant and all but completely invalidates your arguments regardless of merit.
    “the government, markets, … known.” unclear statement & vaguely implict conclusion would, in any case, belong in the end.
    “The long term unemployed … U6 rate.” Undefined term, irrelevant to argument.
    “As a reference, … political biases.” Irrelevant. If required, belongs in the analytical body.
    “But that’s just my opinion.” Implicit redundancy. We know, that’s why you wrote this.

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    Warren, everybody loves the smell of their own farts. But if you really want to call yourself a writer, then you will have to learn how to write.

    Good writing is not as subjective as you seem to think. Proof? Take 69, 70 & 71 and reassemble them back into an article as I’ve rewritten it (and clean up my typos). Then post them both on any political forum, right, left or center, and ask for feedback. I guarantee that I will have made your point better than you did.

    And this raises a second truth that you will have to learn to cope with, If I can present your ideas better than you can, then clearly, I must understand the arguments. Therefor, you will have to accept the idea that some people who disagree with you might actually have a reason other than “not understanding your argument.” Not always and, perhaps not even often. But it will happen.

    There are two words that have been used by Dr. D, Glen C and myself in other comments that I’ve never once seen you use, “Good Point.” I will let you sort out the significance of this.

    And why am I bothering with all this? F***ing insomnia.

  • http://www.RosesSpanishBoots.com Christopher Rose

    Doc, The Sun – and other traditionally right of centre newspapers – probably had no problem supporting Tony Blair as he was further to the right of the political spectrum than any other Labour leader has ever been and, as it turned out, one of the worst Prime Ministers we ever had.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    True, that, Chris. Most analytical measures I’ve seen place the Blair government further to the right than the supposedly centrist Lib Dems – and more right-wing on some issues than even Thatcher!

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    I almost forgot how badly Blair flamed out. Most Americans’ best memory of him is thinking, “Hey, Bush, you’d do better to shut up and and let the Brit do all the talking.”

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Not for nothing did Blair become widely reviled as an American “poodle”.

    That’s why the famous scene in Love Actually in which Hugh Grant’s newly-elected (replacing, it is strongly implied, Blair) Prime Minister stands up to the bullying US president resonated so strongly. I believe it received standing ovations in some UK cinemas at the time.

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    I remember when I saw that seen that it ought to play well to the home crowd. Your explanation is exactly how interpreted it.

    It made me think of The West Wing, a bit, in that, “Gee, wouldn’t it be fun to have an effective Democrat in the White House about now?”