OOPS!

 

 

 

 

http://twitchy.com/2013/10/08/awkward-wh-a...s-n-word-tweet/

Huh? What was wrong with that tweet?

 

What was he trying to spell? And why would that word be in his auto-correct?

What was he trying to spell? And why would that word be in his auto-correct?

b and n are right next to each other. I just checked, I've NEVER written that word in my life, and it is in my spell check. It wont auto correct to a different word.

What was he trying to spell? And why would that word be in his auto-correct?

Tigger. In addition to Yosemite, Hundred Acre Wood has also been closed.

The U.S. is suspending its entire Antarctic research program and recalling its staff from bases around antarctica which are funded by NSF. This will cost hundreds, maybe thousands of scientists a full year of work and there is no turning back from it once the people leave because research trips cannot happen.

 

This will also cost millions, maybe billions of dollars in lost research funds, it will cost support jobs worldwide for the entire year. Projects that have been monitoring things continuously for decades will be lost and some may basically start next year at square one.

The U.S. is suspending its entire Antarctic research program and recalling its staff from bases around antarctica which are funded by NSF. This will cost hundreds, maybe thousands of scientists a full year of work and there is no turning back from it once the people leave because research trips cannot happen.

 

This will also cost millions, maybe billions of dollars in lost research funds, it will cost support jobs worldwide for the entire year. Projects that have been monitoring things continuously for decades will be lost and some may basically start next year at square one.

 

That would increase the unemployment rate--if the people calculating the unemployment rate weren't also furloughed.

 

That would increase the unemployment rate--if the people calculating the unemployment rate weren't also furloughed.

 

Since the unemployment rate is nothing but a lie anyway, who f***ing cares.

Since the unemployment rate is nothing but a lie anyway, who f***ing cares.

I was expecting that the link would reference people dropping out of the labor force, a number tracked by the same survey, done by the government, and was not disappointed.

Since the unemployment rate is nothing but a lie anyway, who f***ing cares.

 

The unemployment rate isn't a lie, it's just not exactly what people expect it to be.

 

I was expecting that the link would reference people dropping out of the labor force, a number tracked by the same survey, done by the government, and was not disappointed.

 

There is nothing to be disappointed about. The number they represent as "unemployed" is an outright fallacy, but worse, is accepted by many.

The unemployment rate isn't a lie, it's just not exactly what people expect it to be.

 

It is a lie. There is nothing accurate about the unemployment rate they throw around. FAR more than 10% of this country is unemployed. All the pseudo rules, loopholes and shortcuts they use to arrive at their number are lies, lies, and damn lies.

It is a lie. There is nothing accurate about the unemployment rate they throw around. FAR more than 10% of this country is unemployed. All the pseudo rules, loopholes and shortcuts they use to arrive at their number are lies, lies, and damn lies.

Of course, the real question to ask is whether or not the data is actually showing anything useful, and in that sense it certainly appears both surveys give realistic looks at the labor market. If you compare unemployment now to the 5% in 2006, the 3.5% in 2000, or the 10% in 2009/2010, it's quite clear that today's is in fact expressing a much worse labor market than the former and a better labor market than the latter, which is entirely what everyone would expect based on their experiences. Similarly, when the employer survey shows a loss of 800,000 jobs a month in Dec/Jan 08-09, that's sort of bad, while the rapid turnaround to job gains of 100,000 a month suggests that some policies were done correctly in that period. However, the stagnation at 100,000 a month since then suggests we've screwed things up since then and the labor market has basically been one step above completely stagnant since then, which again, appears entirely true.

 

Furthermore, job gains of 200,000 a month reported by that survey have clearly been associated with times when we think the economy is doing better based on other data, while job gains under 100,000 a month since then have clearly been associated with other indications of slowdowns. The difference between 150,000 and 160,000 obviously isn't statistically significant, but the difference between 150,000 and 200,000 is.

There is nothing to be disappointed about. The number they represent as "unemployed" is an outright fallacy, but worse, is accepted by many.

 

The definition of 'unemployed' has been the same for a long time. The unemployment rate is the percentage of the labor force who are not emplolyed. The labor force includes everybody who is working or is actively looking for work. People who are retired, children, students, or anybody else who does not want to work for whatever reason are not a part of the labor force.

 

Please don't try to tell me you know more about me than the unemployment rate. I've spent nearly 15 years working on it in some capacity.

 

If you have some sort of ideological problem with the U3 rate, well, okay, the same government using "pseudo rules, loopholes and shortcuts" publishes U1, U2, U4, U5 and U6 as well.

 

I think most people think of and view the unemployment rate as a measurement device and they're looking at it in relative terms. It doesn't matter if you don't like where it's calibrated to if you're just using it to gauge "more or less than a previous measurement" or to analyze trend lines. That's not to say that it's not important to consider changing workforce participation rates, underemployment, etc., but there's nothing inherently wrong or dishonest about the U3 rate.

 

That piece Y2HH linked to seems pretty hackish. It presents the "unemployment rate" as a single number that the government puts out and doesn't mention that they actually put out six different numbers. Then it presents this graph:

 

 

Interestingly, it doesn't actually cite any of the data used to produce it. Are the non-employed all of the non-employed (U-6), or just discouraged workers (U-4)? But, more problematic, it labels them as the "Official Unemployment Rate" and the "Unemployment Rate Adjusted for the Nonemployed." Why not explain what U-3 and U-4 are and label them that way? Probably because it would undermine the central argument that the "official unemployment rate" is just a lie from politicians to support Democratic policies (see: the swipes at QE and stimulus spending).

 

FWIW, Davies is affiliated with CATO and works in the economics department at GMU, one of the most libertarian universities around. He's clearly making these arguments in a political context, not as a disinterested economic observer.

 

Now I'm even more curious as to what sort of "adjustments" were made to the unemployment rate. His trend line doesn't match U-4, 5 or 6.

 

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemploy...amp;toYear=2012

 

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemploy...amp;toYear=2012

 

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemploy...amp;toYear=2012

Shutdown means no new beer from craft brewers

 

Mike Brenner is trying to open a craft brewery in Milwaukee by December. His application to include a tasting room is now on hold, as are his plans to file paperwork for four labels over the next few weeks. He expects to lose about $8,000 for every month his opening is delayed.

 

“My dream, this is six years in the making, is to open this brewery,” Brenner said. “I’ve been working so hard, and I find all these great investors. And now I can’t get started because people are fighting over this or that in Washington. … This is something people don’t mess around with. Even in a bad economy, people drink beer.”

 

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, or TTB, is a little-known arm of the Treasury Department. The agency will continue to process taxes from existing permit holders, but applications for anything new are in limbo.

Why the hell should a tasting room need a permit from the federal gov't? How about republicans pass CR in exchange for making less stupid alcohol regulations on books (like wine across state lines).

Why the hell should a tasting room need a permit from the federal gov't? How about republicans pass CR in exchange for making less stupid alcohol regulations on books (like wine across state lines).

How about just less stupid regulations in general? Why stop with alcohol.

How about just less stupid regulations in general? Why stop with alcohol.

 

Agree completely.

 

Lets stop regulating: marriage, sex, drugs, and immigration...

 

 

Why the hell should a tasting room need a permit from the federal gov't? How about republicans pass CR in exchange for making less stupid alcohol regulations on books (like wine across state lines).

 

Because states do not want the expense and shifted it to the feds. Other sellers of alcohol, (bars) don't like competitors giving away what they sell. Anytime you are serving food and beverage in this country it is inspected in some way. The closer to the production, the more likely it will be the feds. This way a company does not have to deal with mutiple inspectors looking at basically the same thing.

Giving away what they sell? Tasting rooms aren't free.

Giving away what they sell? Tasting rooms aren't free.

 

Depends on the facility. When I was in California a few years back at least half were free.

Yeah I'm not entirely sure why a tasting room wouldn't just fall under the local liquor license.

Giving away what they sell? Tasting rooms aren't free.

 

Most of the breweries i've been to have been. It's normally a tour and a beer or a flight of beer for free. And then you can stick around and drink like you're at a bar.