The NC GOP Recovery

[bmoneydeac]

Here's one for NC and Texas

 

[jhmd2000]

Are we allowed to ask questions (again) like why there are two different Y-axes with different data? Even ignoring that patent defect---and I'm being charitable----let's just pick one: I'll let you decide whether we go with the eastern or western y-axis...is that even possible? Do we believe that there is ONLY a difference of 100,000 people in the civilian labor forces of California and North Carolina?

Can we have statistics that pass the smell test next time?

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

ugh dual y axis ugh

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

Are we allowed to ask questions (again) like why there are two different Y-axes with different data? Even ignoring that patent defect---and I'm being charitable----let's just pick one: I'll let you decide whether we go with the eastern or western y-axis...is that even possible? Do we believe that there is ONLY a difference of 100,000 people in the civilian labor forces of California and North Carolina?

Can we have statistics that pass the smell test next time?

Are you some kind of idiot? California is clearly labeled as left scale and NC as right. Pretty easy to figure out which is which, counselor.

And the reason for splitting the scales is pretty obvious; California's a whole fuck of a lot bigger. But indexing to the period when NC cut long-term UI is better, so I did that in the post above this one.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Well the reason there is a double y-axis is because it's comparing rate increase across different numbers, which is why the other one is included to show index if I read that correctly. The first one doesn't even have the same increments/scale on the two sides

 

[WFFaithful]

Are we allowed to ask questions (again) like why there are two different Y-axes with different data? Even ignoring that patent defect---and I'm being charitable----let's just pick one: I'll let you decide whether we go with the eastern or western y-axis...is that even possible? Do we believe that there is ONLY a difference of 100,000 people in the civilian labor forces of California and North Carolina?

Can we have statistics that pass the smell test next time?

LOLZ

 

[PhDeac]

Breaking news: jhmd really is stupid.

What is confusing about a dual y-axis?

 

[WFFaithful]

Are we allowed to ask questions (again) like why there are two different Y-axes with different data? Even ignoring that patent defect---and I'm being charitable----let's just pick one: I'll let you decide whether we go with the eastern or western y-axis...is that even possible? Do we believe that there is ONLY a difference of 100,000 people in the civilian labor forces of California and North Carolina?

Can we have statistics that pass the smell test next time?

the difference is 14000000

 

[Deadbolt]

I smell something burning.

 

[jhmd2000]

Well the reason there is a double y-axis is because it's comparing rate increase across different numbers, which is why the other one is included to show index if I read that correctly. The first one doesn't even have the same increments/scale on the two sides

I get that, but looking at the increments, in Cali, you're looking at a delta of less than 200,000 people out of a labor force of nearly 20,000,000. In North Carolina, you're talking about 70,000 people spread over the entire State. That's what, Kernersville? Doesn't exactly give me reason to discount North Carolina lopping a solid two percentage points off of its unemployment rate over the same time period.

FWIW, here are the terms that go into the calc for the curious:

Civilian noninstitutional population: Persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, who are not inmates of institutions (e.g., penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.


Civilian labor force: All persons in the civilian noninstitutional population classified as either employed or unemployed.


Employed persons: All persons who, during the reference week (week including the twelfth day of the month), (a) did any work as paid employees, worked in their own business or profession or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of their family, or (b) were not working but who had jobs from which they were temporarily absent. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job.

Unemployed persons: All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4 week-period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

Unemployment rate: The ratio of unemployed to the civilian labor force expressed as a percent [i.e., 100 times (unemployed/labor force)].

So....if 923's point is that some people disappeared from the CLF it's because they were not "unemployed". According to the definition on the BLS website, you WERE "unemployed" if you made a specific effort to find a job in the last four weeks and didn't have one. If you didn't make an effort, then it seems to me that is a fair exclusion. If your point is that we should discount the BLS stats b/c it doesn't factor in people not looking for work, then you are counting people as "unemployed" who aren't even bothering to seek work....how is public policy supposed to help people who aren't trying, exactly?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Jhmd back tracks on original point after showing his ass, and now the people haven't disappeared, they just don't deserve to be counted because 70,000 NC citizens are insignificant

 

[PhDeac]

70,000 is three Kernersvilles. More than jhmd's beloved Chapel Hill. Almost Chapel Hill plus Carrboro. That's a lot of good North Carolinians who gave up on the NC GOP.

 

[jhmd2000]

Jhmd back tracks on original point after showing his ass, and now the people haven't disappeared, they just don't deserve to be counted because 70,000 NC citizens are insignificant

It's not that those people are insignificant, it's that their not in sufficient number to cause the distortion that 923 is hoping is necessary to wish away the BLS numbers. Even if EVERY ONE of those 70,000 people stopped working because they were so discouraged by that portion of our economy that is the result of GOP leadership, it wouldn't be enough to push North Carolina to the second highest job growth rate in the country. 65,000/4.8M= 1.3%. NC's jobless rate has shrunk from 9.9% when McCrory was elected to 6.3%. Linkage.

That's twice the rate as California, as seen by their data linked here.

We're supposed to disregard a doubling of the rate of job growth because of what a fraction of people who've quit looking for work might be thinking?

An excerpt of note: The number of people either working or looking for jobs fell by 24,000 between July, when North Carolina workers quit receiving extended unemployment benefits, and March, the federal data show. During the same period, employers added 63,000 more jobs to nearly 4.4 million.

So even if every person who dropped out of the calculation did so because they got discouraged (which apparently only happens in North Carolina), for each one of them that did so nearly three other people found jobs. Not bad. Go tell it on Kernersville, over the hills and everywhere...

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

It's not that those people are insignificant, it's that their not in sufficient number to cause the distortion that 923 is hoping is necessary to wish away the BLS numbers. Even if EVERY ONE of those 70,000 people stopped working because they were so discouraged by that portion of our economy that is the result of GOP leadership, it wouldn't be enough to push North Carolina to the second highest job growth rate in the country. 65,000/4.8M= 1.3%. NC's jobless rate has shrunk from 9.9% when McCrory was elected to 6.3%. Linkage.

That's twice the rate as California, as seen by their data linked here.

We're supposed to disregard a doubling of the rate of job growth because of what a fraction of people who've quit looking for work might be thinking?

Thank you for already doing the math for me, 6.3 + 1.3= 7.6% Just out of curiosity, where would a 2.3% drop in unemployment rank nationally?

 

[bmoneydeac]

First of all the graphs were to show that NC did have some statistical noise that CA and TX didn't. I thought that was plainly obvious.

Second, is there an easy way to determine how many of the 70,000 went from unemployed to not looking for work vs retired, died, etc?

 

[jhmd2000]

Thank you for already doing the math for me, 6.3 + 1.3= 7.6% Just out of curiosity, where would a 2.3% drop in unemployment rank nationally?

Here are the big movers over one year (Obviously March 2013 is not the same as November 2012). 2.3 would still be second, even if you were to ignore every single one of the 70,000 people.

Table B. States with statistically significant unemployment rate changes
from March 2013 to March 2014, seasonally adjusted
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rate |
|-----------|-----------| Over-the-year
State | March | March | change(p)
| 2013 | 2014(p) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
California .....................| 9.2 | 8.1 | -1.1
Colorado .......................| 7.0 | 6.2 | -.8
Delaware .......................| 6.8 | 5.9 | -.9
Florida ........................| 7.7 | 6.3 | -1.4
Georgia ........................| 8.4 | 7.0 | -1.4
Idaho ..........................| 6.5 | 5.2 | -1.3
Indiana ........................| 7.9 | 5.9 | -2.0
Louisiana ......................| 6.4 | 4.5 | -1.9
Maine ..........................| 6.8 | 5.9 | -.9
Maryland .......................| 6.7 | 5.6 | -1.1
| | |
Michigan .......................| 8.8 | 7.5 | -1.3
Nevada .........................| 10.2 | 8.5 | -1.7
New Hampshire ..................| 5.3 | 4.5 | -.8
New Jersey .....................| 8.7 | 7.2 | -1.5
New York .......................| 7.9 | 6.9 | -1.0
North Carolina .................| 8.5 | 6.3 | -2.2
Ohio ...........................| 7.3 | 6.1 | -1.2
Oregon .........................| 8.0 | 6.9 | -1.1
Pennsylvania ...................| 7.7 | 6.0 | -1.7
South Carolina .................| 8.0 | 5.5 | -2.5
| | |
Tennessee ......................| 8.3 | 6.7 | -1.6
Texas ..........................| 6.4 | 5.5 | -.9
Vermont ........................| 4.2 | 3.4 | -.8
Virginia .......................| 5.6 | 5.0 | -.6
Wisconsin ......................| 6.9 | 5.9 | -1.0

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

First of all the graphs were to show that NC did have some statistical noise that CA and TX didn't. I thought that was plainly obvious.

Second, is there an easy way to determine how many of the 70,000 went from unemployed to not looking for work vs retired, died, etc?

Not really. I don't know if there's prime-age (25-54) labor force participation stats on the state level but that'd get you a lot of the way on stripping out retirements and death.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Seems like the best conservative argument would be to defend the net jobs created in 2013, which was a 2.1 growth - 85 thousand jobs

 

[bmoneydeac]

Seems like the best conservative argument would be to defend the net jobs created in 2013, which was a 2.1 growth - 85 thousand jobs

Pshaw what's that Kernersville plus Mocksville?

 

[jhmd2000]

Over that time period, the runaway all stars are states in the South and Midwest. Then again, Senator Berger is probably calling favors with the bean counters in Florida, Georgia, Tenn., Louisiana, Indiana and South Cack just to make California/923/Obama look bad. Nothing to see here.