Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

by Guest Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:57 am

First topic message reminder :

99ers... UI... What is Going On? Today, in a few minutes actually, I will be speaking with Reps. Barbara Lee and Sander Levin regarding unemployment benefits. They are set to expire for 2.2 million people on December 31st after the Super Committee failure. There is also a question of what to do regarding the Lee/Scott [...]

http://www.crewof42.com/cbc/will-unemployment-be-extended/

by ranbrow123 Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:51 pm

Tara wrote:Can't provide the evidence, there are not more jobs out there. Of course unless you consider part time, minimum wage jobs that require a Masters Degree a "real job".

I don't want to distract from my argument that lendme's evidence is completely anecdotal, but this is also a good point: what kind of jobs are available is important, as well.

by Atctz Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:53 pm

Lendme I still think it just involves a lot of factors. Where you live, who is doing the hiring, your age, education, etc.

by lendmeflight2 Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:57 pm

Lol, What other kind of evidence would I have? Of course it's anecdotal. I can't count all the jobs in the country can I?

You are right. I am sure there are not more jobs. I must just have become luckier all of a sudden.

All I can say is it was a lot harder than this in 2009. But, No, I don't have irrefutable proof of that either.

by ranbrow123 Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:08 pm

lendmeflight2 wrote:Lol, What other kind of evidence would I have? Of course it's anecdotal. I can't count all the jobs in the country can I?

You are right. I am sure there are not more jobs. I must just have become luckier all of a sudden.

All I can say is it was a lot harder than this in 2009. But, No, I don't have irrefutable proof of that either.

If you can't count all the jobs in the country, and don't have a resource available to tell you, then you cannot make a statement that "there are more jobs now." You simply don't know.

Anecdotal evidence is fallible because the sample size tends to be much too low. It's like me rolling a 6 five times out of ten on a six-sided die then claiming that someone is even money to roll a 6, when the reality is it's 5:1 and I just didn't have enough of a sample size to judge properly.

It's ironic you make a sarcastic comment about getting lucky, because that is precisely what I'm arguing. How are you so sure you aren't just having much better luck with your job search now relative to a year or two ago?

by lendmeflight2 Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:27 pm

I have never been lucky ever before in my life. In fact, I am the guy amongst my family and friends known for having the worst luck. That is neither here nor there.

I suppose I wasn't making a purely scientific comment. A purely scientific comment would be "there appears to be more jobs now than two years ago".

You would really expect me to count every job in the country? Really?

If you want to throw the scientific method in my face, I can play that game too.

Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Is it more likely that, after being out of work more than two years and having no interviews, I all of a sudden had better luck? Or is it more likely that there are more jobs to apply for? They aren't great jobs but they are better than the nothing I was getting from being a 99er. I work about 30 hours a week and I make 10 bucks an hour. It's a lot better than nothing.

To your example. If you rolled a die only 10 ten times and hit 6 half of them that is still pretty good money. True the sample size is small but the odds of it happening have to be incredible. So incredible that the odds have to be better than one in 5. If you rolled it twice and hit 6 once I would totally agree.

I don't really care what you choose to believe. It doesn't change either of our situations.

by ranbrow123 Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

lendmeflight2 wrote:I have never been lucky ever before in my life. In fact, I am the guy amongst my family and friends known for having the worst luck. That is neither here nor there.

Being unlucky in the past does not make one more or less likely to become lucky. It's fully possible you have been unlucky all your life, but that doesn't mean you couldn't suddenly have been lucky.

I suppose I wasn't making a purely scientific comment. A purely scientific comment would be "there appears to be more jobs now than two years ago".

That would be an opinion.

You would really expect me to count every job in the country? Really?

Nope. I'm just saying you can't present things as fact without hard evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not hard evidence.

If you want to throw the scientific method in my face, I can play that game too.

I'm not playing a game at all, and I'm not throwing anything in your face. Seriously.

Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Is it more likely that, after being out of work more than two years and having no interviews, I all of a sudden had better luck? Or is it more likely that there are more jobs to apply for? They aren't great jobs but they are better than the nothing I was getting from being a 99er. I work about 30 hours a week and I make 10 bucks an hour. It's a lot better than nothing.

That's not quite what Occam's Razor says. Regardless, you being luckier is actually a simpler solution, since it makes less assumptions (which is what Occam's razor asks you to do).

To your example. If you rolled a die only 10 ten times and hit 6 half of them that is still pretty good money. True the sample size is small but the odds of it happening have to be incredible. So incredible that the odds have to be better than one in 5. If you rolled it twice and hit 6 once I would totally agree.

So in my example, you're saying you'd be willing to bet me 4:1 that you could roll a 6?

Assuming the die isn't rigged in some way -- and in my example I was assuming it wasn't -- the odds are 5:1. It doesn't matter if I roll a six 5 times in 10 or 50 times in 100, the odds are always going to be 5:1 and the fact is always going to be that I just happened to roll a whole lotta sixes! What you're experiencing here is classic "gamblers fallacy," which is the mistaken belief that past results influence future events.

by js123 Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:28 am

ranbrow123 wrote:
lendmeflight2 wrote:I have never been lucky ever before in my life. In fact, I am the guy amongst my family and friends known for having the worst luck. That is neither here nor there.

Being unlucky in the past does not make one more or less likely to become lucky. It's fully possible you have been unlucky all your life, but that doesn't mean you couldn't suddenly have been lucky.

I suppose I wasn't making a purely scientific comment. A purely scientific comment would be "there appears to be more jobs now than two years ago".

That would be an opinion.

You would really expect me to count every job in the country? Really?

Nope. I'm just saying you can't present things as fact without hard evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not hard evidence.

If you want to throw the scientific method in my face, I can play that game too.

I'm not playing a game at all, and I'm not throwing anything in your face. Seriously.

Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Is it more likely that, after being out of work more than two years and having no interviews, I all of a sudden had better luck? Or is it more likely that there are more jobs to apply for? They aren't great jobs but they are better than the nothing I was getting from being a 99er. I work about 30 hours a week and I make 10 bucks an hour. It's a lot better than nothing.

That's not quite what Occam's Razor says. Regardless, you being luckier is actually a simpler solution, since it makes less assumptions (which is what Occam's razor asks you to do).

To your example. If you rolled a die only 10 ten times and hit 6 half of them that is still pretty good money. True the sample size is small but the odds of it happening have to be incredible. So incredible that the odds have to be better than one in 5. If you rolled it twice and hit 6 once I would totally agree.

So in my example, you're saying you'd be willing to bet me 4:1 that you could roll a 6?

Assuming the die isn't rigged in some way -- and in my example I was assuming it wasn't -- the odds are 5:1. It doesn't matter if I roll a six 5 times in 10 or 50 times in 100, the odds are always going to be 5:1 and the fact is always going to be that I just happened to roll a whole lotta sixes! What you're experiencing here is classic "gamblers fallacy," which is the mistaken belief that past results influence future events.

Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?' - Page 2 86524

Too many quotes, Ranbrow! Totally lost here!

by ranbrow123 Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:37 am

js123 wrote: Too many quotes, Ranbrow! Totally lost here!

I had to break it up to address each point individually. Each paragraph that follows a quote is addressing that quote.

by Guest Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:47 am

ranbrow123 wrote:
js123 wrote: Too many quotes, Ranbrow! Totally lost here!

I had to break it up to address each point individually. Each paragraph that follows a quote is addressing that quote.

js123, with this said would you please re-evaluate what ranbrow has taken time in addressing. Not taking sides here - honestly - just want to make the observation that it doesn't appear to appear one way at first and perhaps needs to be scanned more than once to be understood - hell I'm pretty quick on the draw myself. Ranbrow is answering point by point. Just being respectful - might not be agreeing with you, but certainly explaining an opinion.

Anyways, sorry for the interrupt! Me bad!!!

by Guest Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:10 am

Yes, for the "greatest country" USA, to be impoverishing their people just so they have "their own". To not stop the outpouring of $$$ to other countries while those who gave to give now hope to live.

This is the most ugly situation that I can imagine. Forget about "Occupy this or that city, without a reason". Go Occupy Washington, with threats and treason.

It's your country. What the hell are you waiting for????

by lendmeflight2 Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:36 pm

ranbrow123 wrote:
lendmeflight2 wrote:I have never been lucky ever before in my life. In fact, I am the guy amongst my family and friends known for having the worst luck. That is neither here nor there.

Being unlucky in the past does not make one more or less likely to become lucky. It's fully possible you have been unlucky all your life, but that doesn't mean you couldn't suddenly have been lucky.

I suppose I wasn't making a purely scientific comment. A purely scientific comment would be "there appears to be more jobs now than two years ago".

That would be an opinion.

You would really expect me to count every job in the country? Really?

Nope. I'm just saying you can't present things as fact without hard evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not hard evidence.

If you want to throw the scientific method in my face, I can play that game too.

I'm not playing a game at all, and I'm not throwing anything in your face. Seriously.

Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Is it more likely that, after being out of work more than two years and having no interviews, I all of a sudden had better luck? Or is it more likely that there are more jobs to apply for? They aren't great jobs but they are better than the nothing I was getting from being a 99er. I work about 30 hours a week and I make 10 bucks an hour. It's a lot better than nothing.

That's not quite what Occam's Razor says. Regardless, you being luckier is actually a simpler solution, since it makes less assumptions (which is what Occam's razor asks you to do).

To your example. If you rolled a die only 10 ten times and hit 6 half of them that is still pretty good money. True the sample size is small but the odds of it happening have to be incredible. So incredible that the odds have to be better than one in 5. If you rolled it twice and hit 6 once I would totally agree.

So in my example, you're saying you'd be willing to bet me 4:1 that you could roll a 6?

Assuming the die isn't rigged in some way -- and in my example I was assuming it wasn't -- the odds are 5:1. It doesn't matter if I roll a six 5 times in 10 or 50 times in 100, the odds are always going to be 5:1 and the fact is always going to be that I just happened to roll a whole lotta sixes! What you're experiencing here is classic "gamblers fallacy," which is the mistaken belief that past results influence future events.

This has become too absurd for me.
I will not debate useless connotations with you.

For example I won't mention the fact that you attacked my sample size but then in your example you changed the sample size and it didn't change the results of the experiment. I guess you are just too smart for me. How sad I am now.
Ok, I will take it back. There are not more jobs than two years ago. I will chalk it up to being more experienced, have more social skill, possibly more talented, and being more employable.

Good day

by ranbrow123 Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:11 pm

lendmeflight2 wrote:This has become too absurd for me.
I will not debate useless connotations with you.

For example I won't mention the fact that you attacked my sample size but then in your example you changed the sample size and it didn't change the results of the experiment. I guess you are just too smart for me. How sad I am now.
Ok, I will take it back. There are not more jobs than two years ago. I will chalk it up to being more experienced, have more social skill, possibly more talented, and being more employable.

Good day

I did not "attack your sample size," and in fact am not attacking you at all. I merely mentioned that your sample size is too small to derive any useful assumptions from it. The same would be true for analyzing any individual's job search. I'm sure back in 2008 or 2009, whenever, while you were experiencing bad luck (or how you put it, back when there were "less jobs"), there was assuredly someone else saying the same thing you did now: "can't be that few jobs, I'm getting a ton of offers!" Perhaps now -- assuming they're still or again unemployed -- they aren't having as much luck, and are starting to come to the absolute opposite conclusion that you are: "less jobs now then there were then!" None of these conclusions are useful because they function entirely on anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence, by the way, is precisely what the employed who are ignorant of the plight of a lot of members of the forum use to call you all lazy, smelly bums who need to take a bath and find a job. It's just as harmful to their objectivity as it is to yours. "I have a job, so how bad could it be? They just want to game the system and get free money out of my pocket!"

I can change the sample size on a dice roll because the odds of it coming up a particular number are known. We do not know if there are in fact "more jobs than before," but we do know that the odds of rolling a 6 are 5:1. You missed my point, anyway: even with dice, a sample size of 100 is much too small, and there is nowhere near the complexity in dice that there is in a job search to confuse the matter.

The simple fact is the human brain is not equipped to handle probability intuitively -- which means it's completely understandable that you have these misunderstandings about it, hence why I am calmly trying to explain away your confusions on the matter. I just happen to have spent a lot of time studying this stuff.

As for finding yourself unlucky, for almost everybody this is nothing but a case of selective memory. You remember all the bad things that happen to you but none of the good because the bad sticks out in your mind more. I'm sure there's some people who are genuinely just unlucky (and that person could be you, I honestly don't know), but for each one there's got to be plenty more who are experiencing selective memory.

As for your "I will chalk it up to being more experienced, have more social skill, possibly more talented, and being more employable," all this does is make me wonder why you're taking this so personally? Again, I'm not attacking YOU or criticizing YOU, merely the faulty logic you are using. Not to mention I'm incredibly thick-skinned and trying to hurt my feelings is going to be more of a waste of time then trying to push boulders up a mountain.

If you can't address my arguments scientifically, fine. Bow out with class. Don't sit here trying to insult people because someone had the audacity to disagree with you and ask you for the evidence to back up your "factual" claims.

by lendmeflight2 Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:27 pm

I made a cimmense about this becoming too absurd and then you left a comment showing just how absurd.

Let me make this clear.

I DON'T CARE!!!!!

I made a comment about how there are more jobs than 2 years ago. This was an off hand comment. You then had to dissect this comment in a million pieces about job categories and odds of getting a Job vs other factors. I didnt intend for this to be a statement based on imperical evidence that I spent two years collecting all over the country. I have more interviews, I have more jos to apply for, several people on this site and others have jobs that didn't have them two years. Your argument is ludicrous and pointless.

So continue with your "I won" attitude I am done with this. This is the crap we have been reduced to.

by ranbrow123 Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:57 pm

lendmeflight2 wrote:I made a cimmense about this becoming too absurd and then you left a comment showing just how absurd.

Let me make this clear.

I DON'T CARE!!!!!

You don't care so much that you feel the need to continue posting how much you don't care?

I made a comment about how there are more jobs than 2 years ago. This was an off hand comment. You then had to dissect this comment in a million pieces about job categories and odds of getting a Job vs other factors. I didnt intend for this to be a statement based on imperical evidence that I spent two years collecting all over the country. I have more interviews, I have more jos to apply for, several people on this site and others have jobs that didn't have them two years. Your argument is ludicrous and pointless.

"There are more jobs now then two years ago" is a factual statement, plain and simple. Prefacing it with anything such as "I think," "It feels like," or anything like that would make it your opinion and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Admittedly, we'd likely be having another one where I'd be expressing disagreement with your opinion, but at least we'd be dealing with opinions.

So continue with your "I won" attitude I am done with this. This is the crap we have been reduced to.

I would say the real crap is you thinking plugging your ears and singing "lalalala" is a substitute for real debate. Either have the debate or don't. If you're done with it, be done with it. Don't cop-out with "I don't care," then follow it up with a bunch of slights, snide comments, and insults.

by Guest Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:04 pm

Lets drop it and get back on topic before things get out of hand...please!

by lendmeflight2 Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:12 pm

How, exactly, can an opinion be wrong? I thought that was the point of having an opinion. This is not a dissertation. I was engaging in a conversation. In conversation, people sometimes make statements that sound factual but aren't intended to be.

You insist on picking and picking and going on and on and on and on and on.

You at right it's time to bow out. There aren't more jobs than two years ago. I'm just super frickin' lucky.

I have just had enough of this argument, this forum, and trying to help people that won't be helped.

Return to your misery, I am done.

by ranbrow123 Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:18 pm

An admin asked me to drop the argument, and I will respect that admin's wishes, but I just want to say you're right about one thing: it was poor wording to say I would argue your opinion was wrong. What I meant to say was I would be disagreeing with your opinion.

by lendmeflight2 Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:25 pm

No no no! You are right I'm wrong. You win I lose.

Enjoy your victory. Sleep well. I have just had enough and I am so sick I this crap.

I just can't handle it anymore.

Perhaps I will see some of you guys in another life.

by Guest Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:34 pm

lendmeflight2 wrote:No no no! You are right I'm wrong. You win I lose.

Enjoy your victory. Sleep well. I have just had enough and I am so sick I this crap.

I just can't handle it anymore.

Perhaps I will see some of you guys in another life.

Lendme, you have brought some great insights here. Don't leave because someone wants to pick you words apart and twist them. Some people just like to start trouble.

by lendmeflight2 Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:47 pm

Tiya you know I am in love with you and therefore can deny you nothing but maybe it's just time for me to step away. Maybe it's someone else's fight now. I think I have been a member here or at UFF 1 since the fall of 09 and I am just tired. I am tired of other liberals attacking me because I am not liberal enough. I am tired of this whole situation.

I think I've just had enough. I've been emailing and calling for years now and maybe its just driven me nuts.

Maybe I will change my mind in a day or two I don't know.

It's hard enough to fight conservatives that want us to starve everyday and I don't want to fight my side too.

I have been temporarily employed for three weeks now and maybe I just don't have the energy anymore.

by ranbrow123 Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:00 am

tiya wrote:Lendme, you have brought some great insights here. Don't leave because someone wants to pick you words apart and twist them. Some people just like to start trouble.

He HAS bought some great insights here, and I do agree with a lot of what he has to say on this forum, which is one of the reasons why I tried to stay in control instead of outright bombing him. He may feel I did, and you may, too, I can't control how people feel. I only know what's in my heart.

I'm never going to come on here with the intent of kicking people while they're down or just to stir the pot because I think it's fun. I truly believed when I started this that asking him to defend his assertion that "there are more jobs now" was important, because if we're going to use anecdotal evidence, there are plenty of people on here with anecdotal evidence that contradicts his own. That's why anecdotal evidence is almost useless.

I'm sorry, S&T, I know you asked me to stop, but I just felt the need to make it clear that I'm not here because I "like to start trouble."

by Guest Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:03 am

by Guest Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:36 am

While I was with Dad yesterday for his chemo treatment, I was working the phones. I spoke with Reps. Lee, Doggett, Clyburn and Levin's offices. They were very positive with regards to the UE extension and the 99ers. There was a huge crowd lobbying all over the Hill yesterday for the extension and HR589. I promised to follow up with emails today so I will do that this morning. I will be tweeting as well. With this news, I don't want to lose momentum. If anyone has anything they want included, please put it in the 99ers letter forum and I will include it for you. Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?' - Page 2 34243

Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?' - Page 2 34243

by Marian Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:03 pm

I called Congress woman Lee yesterday also and she was really nice-said that she is putting out a lot of effort to help the unemployed...

by Guest Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:50 pm

Good for you Marian. We need every 99er to join in. We just can't lose this momentum. Come on friends, jump on the train, tweet, retweet, call, email, open your windows and scream. Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?' - Page 2 34243

It goes without saying, thanks and hugs to all who are doing so.

For the first time in a long time, I feel we have an excellent chance of being heard, getting benefits and getting a jobs bill!!!! God, I hope I am right.

by Sponsored content

Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Re: Crew of 42 - 'Will Unemployment Be Extended?'

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31