Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 14, 2014 12:30:05 GMT -6
Part-Time/Full-Time Employment Confabulation.
After spending a good 3 hours trying to find and decipher the Dept of Labor's Part-Time Employment Concoction, it became apparent that no outside, non-government person is even supposed to understand their numbers.
There are at least 2 separate tables--both from the Household Survey--which provide different sets of un-matching numbers with no rhyme or reason as to why they differ.
They've been cut, rearranged, and re-blended to where there's no way to understand the connection. (kind of like Mortgage Backed Securities)
Though it should be simple to state how many workers are working part-time vs full-time, the astrophysicists at the BLS have put it in a league with the Theory of Relativity.
The A-18 Table has separate headings for Full-Time Workers and Part-Time Workers. But the Full-Time Worker heading has a subheading for those working 1-34 hours. That number is 8.7 million.
Under the Part-Time Worker heading (separate from the Full-Time heading) is the subheading "Total"--of 27.631 million.
It seems like the 2 separate categories of Part-Time workers should be added together to total 36.331 million.
The Part-Time heading includes a subheading "Not at Work". That number is 1.749 million.
OK. Subtracting 1.749 million from 36.31 million gives 34.561 million. This is still almost 1 million more than 33.598 million.
And I can't help but think that it's by design.
from: The Declaration of Independence: "all Men are...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it"
ace comando: Well, it took me several days and a lot of code writing to sift through the millions of achieved pages on the Wayback Machine achieves. Was about to give up when a colleague gave me mining script to look at all archived pages whether displayed or not. And
Feb 24, 2017 19:44:10 GMT -6
unlawflcombatnt: I've now changed the colors on the board to something more readable. At least now readers can find the sign-in tab.
Jul 6, 2014 22:58:23 GMT -6
unlawflcombatnt: OldUser-the sign-in area is in the dark area immediately under the red section that says Economic Populist Forum. It's almost impossible to see, unless you know where to look. This was ProBoards idea, not mine.
Jun 12, 2014 11:52:53 GMT -6
OldUser: There's no link on here to sign on or login. Where'd it go?
May 29, 2014 8:44:44 GMT -6
jeffolie: One might short a bull ETF to gain the decay but this requires a margin position subject to changes imposed by the exchanges & brokers
Oct 26, 2013 13:26:07 GMT -6
jeffolie: Holding a stop loss in these algo dominated markets almost always means the algos will hit your stops
Oct 26, 2013 13:20:09 GMT -6
jeffolie: Even so, these leveraged ETFs do not create margin calls nor expiration dates thus allowing one to hold indefinitely
Oct 26, 2013 13:17:52 GMT -6
jeffolie: Yes, the ETF features fading/leveraged decay because the futures and/or options used decay plus the administrative costs rise the decay, declining value ... I accept this as a cost and feature of all ETFs that purchase futures/options to maintain price
Oct 26, 2013 13:15:38 GMT -6
mimzy: Sorry, here is the article http://blog.quantumfading.com/2009/06/01/leveraged-decay/ I don't post that often, sometimes computers get away from me b4 I can edit.
Oct 25, 2013 20:49:11 GMT -6
mimzy: jeffolie ~ I've been reading/lurking you for a year or three now and was wondering if your could you explain how you overcome quantum fading/leveraged decay in your ETF short position of the DJIA?
Oct 25, 2013 20:46:26 GMT -6