No, Tim, you are incorrect.
I never "said that" --- and you have already admitted it.
You like links? Well here's the link where you changed your tune to claiming that I had "basically said it" (...which appears to be some NewSpeak for admitting that, in fact, I never actually made the quote that you posted):
Message 25321965
And, as far as the LINK that you provided to try to show that I sorta/mighta/probably almost said something of that sort, here's that link you chose to one (out of many of my posts), the one YOU chose for your 'example': Message 25312787
... And it, in fact, says nothing of the sort.
I *do not* make that statement.
In fact, the link of mine that you point to is not even the first or second, or even third post that I made in our conversation (those where I FIRST made my points, and tried to answer your initial questions), but is simply a link you grabbed from somewhere in the middle of our conversation --- where I am trying (vainly, I see) to figure out how you got so confused about this... EVEN AFTER I had repeated several times that neither the original article nor anything I had posted had specified or identified IN ANY WAY what the exact rules were for how the government set a dividing line between those whom it would count as 'unemployed' and those it would count as 'employed' or 'partially employed' --- either *NOW*, or in *PAST ERAS*.
Tim, here follows the ONE AND ONLY ORIGINAL LINK. The ORIGINAL POSTING of the news article written by Pedro Nicolaci da Costa of Reuters.
Wherein he discusses the argument advanced by John Williams, from the electronic newsletter Shadowstats.com (based on data collected under contract to Reuters) that because "discouraged workers" are treated DIFFERENTLY in the government data sets before and after the LBJ administration changed the methodology --- the Great Depression unemployment figures are not directly comparable to modern figures until and unless the figures are adjusted to account for the differing treatments of "discouraged workers".
--------------------------------------------------------
"Under President Lyndon Johnson, the government decided individuals who had stopped looking for work for more than a year were no longer part of the labor force. This dramatically decreased the jobless rate reported by the government."
-------------------------------------------------------
Only in the following paragraph does the Reuters article turn to a quote from a completely different person (Robert Schenk, professor of economics at St. Joseph's College, Indiana) when he passingly mentions what seems to be (at least that is the impression that is given by Reuters) a *second factor* which also results in differences between the 'modern' employment numbers (after LBJ?) and the Depression era data sets --- and that is the treatment of "part-time workers".
Here is that ENTIRE paragraph: "Both part-time workers wanting full-time work and discouraged workers tend to make the unemployment rate lower than it would otherwise be," says Robert Schenk, professor of economics at St. Joseph's College, Indiana."
And the link:
Message 25312445
As you can clearly see - based on that one professor's line - the article appears to be ALLUDING to what might be changes in the treatment of 'part-time/full-time'... but it never actually says it, and it never gives any details at all.
But --- as I have already said a half dozen times or more now: NEITHER YOU NOR I HAVE POSTED *ANY* SOLID DATA ABOUT PERIOD DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COUNTING OF 'PART TIME' WORKERS IN THE GOVERNMENT UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS EITHER *THEN* (GREAT DEPRESSION) OR NOW.
No posts. NO "QUOTES". NO ASSERTIONS (at least, none by *me*).
Only the simple and direct observations (repeated SEVERAL TIMES!!!!!!!!) that *neither* of us has posted ANY data about the 'part-time / full-time' government methodologies....
|
