Unemployment falls below 8

[Burgold]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-jobless-rate-falls-7-8-pct-44-123110986--finance.html

First of all, regardless of politics that is great news for many Americans looking for work and fearing for their security. Glad to hear it. Go private sector!

Second, there's a part of me that thinks this is too big a jump and the timing is kind of coincidental. Is there some creative accounting going on here? It's such good news that the spidey-sense goes off a little.

Third, if these are real numbers, it's going to deeply impact the election.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Indeed good news for America!
enter those who want to see this as bad, and those who will use say that the "real" number is higher while chosing to not use that same calculation to evaluate unemployment under the previous administration.

[thebluefood]

Let's hope this is the real McCoy and this is a sign of further recovery.

This is going to be huge for the Obama campaign. After having a poor showing in Denver, Obama needed all the good news he could get. This is manna from heaven for his campaign.

Still, with our (apparently) inevitable jump off the fiscal cliff, I don't know how long this ray of sunshine is going to pierce through the clouds. I hope it does, though.

Regardless of your politics this is good news.

[Elessar78]

I don't want to be the gray cloud, but it'll be interesting to see what part of that number is because a large number of people have given up on looking for employment.

[skinsfan_1215]

double post

[MattFancy]

That's great news!

[skinsfan_1215]

I don't want to be the gray cloud, but it'll be interesting to see what part of that number is because a large number of people have given up on looking for employment.

"The Labor Department said Friday that employers added 114,000 jobs in September. The economy also created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than first estimated. Wages rose in September and more people started looking for work.

The revisions show employers added 146,000 jobs per month from July through September, up from 67,000 in the previous three months. The unemployment rate fell from 8.1 percent in August, matching its level in January 2009 when President Barack Obama took office."

[Thinking Skins]

I don't want to be the gray cloud, but it'll be interesting to see what part of that number is because a large number of people have given up on looking for employment.

http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14240541-unemployment-rate-falls-to-78-as-economy-creates-114000-jobs?lite

"A survey of households from which the jobless rate is derived showed 873,000 job gains last month, the most since June 1983. The drop in unemployment came even as Americans come back into the labor force to resume the hunt for work. The workforce had shrank in the prior two months."


It seems that this is good news all around.

[DCranon21]

That is great news. Hope this trend keeps up.

[Teller]

Third, if these are real numbers, it's going to deeply impact the election.

I don't know about that. The $825 billion we all spent was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% from the get-go.

I guess a couple percentage points in, what, 44 months could be considered a nice return on our investment if your kool aid is blue. :)

[Elessar78]

That's fantastic!!! I'm glad when I'm wrong.

[Dallsux]

I don't want to be the gray cloud, but it'll be interesting to see what part of that number is because a large number of people have given up on looking for employment.

I read an article a few weeks ago that said this very thing. That many Americans, after months of looking for work, have simply given up the search. I know that I have recently rejoined the workforce after looking for a couple of months, so I thank the Lord for that.

But there are all kinds of ways to mask the truth behind numbers. And unfortunately, I don't trust a single politican or their motives. However, like an above poster, I do hold out hope that this is a sign of future growth & not just some political move to gain American public approval.

[Madison Redskin]

Cooking the books would involve a conspiracy involving a lot of folks at the DoL/BLS. It doesn't strike me as something O would try to pull off.

I am not sure if it would be wise for Obama to hang his hat on this one. This is good news but how helpful is it to say, "The unemployment rate is very high, exactly where it was when Bush left office, and a lot of people have left the workforce. BOOM! Suck on that Mitt!"

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I don't care about the politics of all of this...so I'm just happy to read it. I have a few people in my life who have been looking for work for a long time.

[Thinking Skins]

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/05/14241281-job-market-shows-signs-of-life-unemployment-falls-to-4-year-low


And while drops in the unemployment rate are sometimes the result of Americans leaving the workforce, that's not the case in this new report -- the employment-to-population ratio went up, not down.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I don't know about that. The $825 billion we all spent was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% from the get-go.
I guess a couple percentage points in, what, 44 months could be considered a nice return on our investment if your kool aid is blue. :)

Sure beats the "let it all go to hell" approach advocated by the Right.

[Buford]

Good news. As far as reaction. You'll tell how important this is based on who replies and what they say. If you get any conspiracy stuff, you know the numbers are really good.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Good news. As far as reaction. You'll tell how important this is based on who replies and what they say. If you get any conspiracy stuff, you know the numbers are really good.

Exactly, I posted the Reuters article on my facebook and was met with the same old "false numbers" gig we see here all the time, that comment was immediately liked...both are ver Republican voters.

[Buford]

Exactly, I posted the Reuters article on my facebook and was met with the same old "false numbers" gig we see here all the time, that comment was immediately liked...both are ver Republican voters.

Then you know the numbers bother them....which in a way is some sick sad ****.


and here it comes.



@jack_welch - Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers

[Elessar78]

Exactly, I posted the Reuters article on my facebook and was met with the same old "false numbers" gig we see here all the time, that comment was immediately liked...both are ver Republican voters.

post a link to Tony Fratto's, Deputy Assistant and Deputy Press Secretary to former United States President George W. Bush,. twitter feed:

@TonyFratto
BLS is not manipulating data. Evidence of such would be a scandal of enormous proportions & loss of credibility.

[twa]

Color me skeptical ,at first glance the math seems off

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/05/number-employed-people-rises-873000-september-highest-december-2008
The economy added 114,000 nonfarm payrolls in the month according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics with gains in healthcare, transportation and warehousing.

Truly shocking in the report was that the number of unemployed people dropped by 456,000 to 12.1 million.
...
But even more mysterious is the divergence in the two surveys done by the Labor Department.

The Household Survey showed a gain of 873,000 people employed in September - resulting in the surprise drop in the unemployment rate - while the Establishment Survey only showed a rise of 114,000.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/05/number-employed-people-rises-873000-september-highest-december-2008#ixzz28QziY5XI

[The Evil Genius]

Party before country!

Did someone say party?

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0912/party-on-hilary-clinton-party-demotivational-poster-1261542645.jpg

:evilg:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Then you know the numbers bother them....which in a way is some sick sad ****.

and here it comes.

Party before country!

[AsburySkinsFan]

Color me skeptical ,at first glance the math seems off

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/05/number-employed-people-rises-873000-september-highest-december-2008
The economy added 114,000 nonfarm payrolls in the month according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics with gains in healthcare, transportation and warehousing.

Truly shocking in the report was that the number of unemployed people dropped by 456,000 to 12.1 million.
...
But even more mysterious is the divergence in the two surveys done by the Labor Department.

The Household Survey showed a gain of 873,000 people employed in September - resulting in the surprise drop in the unemployment rate - while the Establishment Survey only showed a rise of 114,000.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/05/number-employed-people-rises-873000-september-highest-december-2008#ixzz28QziY5XI
Of course it does. Frankly, I think it is absolutely hilarious that when you saw the 7.8 number you webt straight to Newsbusters for guidance and direction.

[twa]

Major revisions to the two prior months numbers
http://www.businessinsider.com/september-non-farm-payrolls-report-2012-10

Maybe they have trouble counting??

[ptr77]

It's pretty disgusting when people actually root against their country succeeding because of political bias. Some Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this, it's equally disgusting who ever does it. We have the same problem in Canada. This is great news for America (and the world) and hopefully a trend that continues. Both sides will try to skew this for political gain (obviously), but it is good news either way.

[The Evil Genius]

best thing that can happen to the admin is extremists to jump on this conspiracy stuff. It backfires like birtherism. At least Romney said this isn't what a recovery looks like....though I'm not sure he's ever seen one or created one either.

His idea of a recovery is getting a loan from Mom and Dad.

[Buford]

best thing that can happen to the admin is extremists to jump on this conspiracy stuff. It backfires like birtherism. At least Romney said this isn't what a recovery looks like....though I'm not sure he's ever seen one or created one either.

[Larry]

Cooking the books would involve a conspiracy involving a lot of folks at the DoL/BLS. It doesn't strike me as something O would try to pull off.

I am not sure if it would be wise for Obama to hang his hat on this one. This is good news but how helpful is it to say, "The unemployment rate is very high, exactly where it was when Bush left office, and a lot of people have left the workforce. BOOM! Suck on that Mitt!"

Oh, agreed.

Politically, "Look how great the economy is! And it's all because of me!" probably doesn't fly too well.

This isn't a great economy. It's an economy that doesn't suck quite as bad as it has been.

[The Evil Genius]

best thing that can happen to the admin is extremists to jump on this conspiracy stuff. It backfires like birtherism. At least Romney said this isn't what a recovery looks like....though I'm not sure he's ever seen one or created one either.

His idea of a recovery is getting a loan from Mom and Dad.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Major revisions to the two prior months numbers
http://www.businessinsider.com/september-non-farm-payrolls-report-2012-10

Maybe they have trouble counting??

So you're taking the position that they are lying? Or are you oing to go all Faux News and sit back and insinuate rather than actually take a position and support it with actual evidence.

[Larry]

Major revisions to the two prior months numbers
http://www.businessinsider.com/september-non-farm-payrolls-report-2012-10

Yes.

They announced that they were better than the estimates. :)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes.

They announced that they were better than the estimates. :)

You apparently don't understand the game, see, when there is good news for America and a Democrat is in office you must first question the news and then imply shady dealings. You don't ever have to try and substantiate the crap you imply you just have to feed the base a shred of doubt for them to cling to the truth that Obama is indeed the worst president in history.

[Prosperity]

The Gallup unemployment rate poll was at 8.1% so I doubt that there is some conspiracy to lower the #'s, they don't seem too far off

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157871/unadjusted-unemployment-rate-september.aspx

(and they had the rate at lower levels in the summer, which corroborates the retrospective revision upward)

[SkinsHokieFan]

Excellent news.

Now hopefully people actually, you know, feel this. On the ground, unless you are in the DC area (yay me) its still appears very rough.

[twa]

Yes.

They announced that they were better than the estimates. :)

Yes, but are the numbers NOW accurate when they were not before?

Maybe the unemployment is actually 6.9 ....since they were off so much earlier

variations on that scale would find my accountant unemployed :)

[Skinz4Life12]

democrat or republican, this is great news

[ptr77]

Yes, but are the numbers NOW accurate when they were not before?

Maybe the unemployment is actually 6.9 ....since they were off so much earlier

variations on that scale would find my accountant unemployed :)

You would fire your accountant for making an estimate and then revising it with the actual numbers?

[twa]

You would fire your accountant for making an estimate and then revising it with the actual numbers?

So you are saying the 7.9 now is simply a estimate or the actual number?

[DjTj]

So you are saying the 7.9 now is simply a estimate or the actual number?It is an estimate. These numbers are always estimates. We do not survey every single American every month to ask them whether or not they are working.

[SkinsHokieFan]

There is no conspiracy to manipulate data. People are hiring and productivity is still sky high, which means more people need to be hired

7.8% still sucks. The trend is good however and hopefully this starts to pick up momentum before the fiscal cliff hits.

If it appears the job market is trending up, hopefully this means QE4 won't become a reality and we see gains across the broader economy

[SkinsHokieFan]

It is an estimate. These numbers are always estimates. We do not survey every single American every month to ask them whether or not they are working.

We could be growing at 4.5% right now.

Or be in a recession at the moment as we were in December '07 when the economy felt fine.

Its impossible to know what the economy is doing "right now" which is why there are so many revisions going forward.

I have interviewed at and know too many people at BLS. These people aren't in the "lets make the incumbent President look good" business

[Rdskns2000]

Let's see what the numbers are after Obama's reelection, if they are still the same or trending downward; then it's for real.

As Bill Clinton says, people have to feel it. For those who are early voting now; if they feel the trend is positive; then Obama has no worries. A vast majority in the swing states have to not feel it, for Obama to lose.

Considering they revise the numbers every month; I will wait to see if we have real improvement or not.

[DjTj]

We could be growing at 4.5% right now.

Or be in a recession at the moment as we were in December '07 when the economy felt fine.

Its impossible to know what the economy is doing "right now" which is why there are so many revisions going forward.

I have interviewed at and know too many people at BLS. These people aren't in the "lets make the incumbent President look good" businessI also think it's important to note that, even though the number is likely to be revised later, it is the *best* estimate they can come up with right now. It is impossible to be absolutely correct (short of forcing every American to report their daily employment status to the government), but their job is to do the best that they can.

edit: I found a technical note to the BLS data, which explains that there is an expected sampling error of around 100,000 jobs and a 90% confidence interval for the unemployment rate of +/- 0.19% (when unemployment is around 5.5%).

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm

Assuming that the error will increase with the square root of the unemployment rate, that would put the confidence interval at +/-0.23% for this estimate. That means that BLS is estimating that there is a 90% chance that the true unemployment rate is between 7.6% and 8.0%.


Yes, but are the numbers NOW accurate when they were not before?

Maybe the unemployment is actually 6.9 ....since they were off so much earlier

variations on that scale would find my accountant unemployed :)It depends on what you have hired your accountant to do. If you are giving your accountant records of every single transaction you have made, and they are supposed to add those up, then yes, you should fire an accountant who is off by a few percentage points.

But if you are asking your accountant to estimate the productivity of your workforce based on a survey of a representative sample of your employees, then an error of a few percentage points would be perfectly reasonable.

[ptr77]

So you are saying the 7.9 now is simply a estimate or the actual number?

Ah I see your point. So since all these numbers don't come from polling every American, they are all worthless. Unless of course they show very high unemployment, then they are definitely completely 100% accurate and above reproach and questioning.

You can chose to believe the numbers or not. The possibility of the job market turning around doesn't mean Obama is doing a good job. Just like someone being happy about these numbers doesn't automatically make them a democrat.

[skinsmarydu]

I'm super stoked about this. BARACK2012

[Chump Bailey]

Excellent news.

Now hopefully people actually, you know, feel this. On the ground, unless you are in the DC area (yay me) its still appears very rough.

It's very rough outside of this area for the most part - very much so...

It will get bad here if the DoD contracts go down the toilet and they will if O get's re-elected (God help us personally)

I got real lucky. I was in Florida unemployed from 7/11 thru 8/12. I reached out to a contact in the NOVA area and landed in a federally funded contract position. I have some security, but anything can happen.

[DallasCowboyFan156]

This is the lowest unemployment number since the President took office. He has one more jobs report due out before the election. If it dips below 7.8% he can claim that the economy is now better than it was than at the end of the Bush era which would be huge.

[skinsfan07]

This is the lowest unemployment number since the President took office. He has one more jobs report due out before the election. If it dips below 7.8% he can claim that the economy is now better than it was than at the end of the Bush era which would be huge.

Bingo. Hopefully it drops to at least 7.5%.

[Buford]

Obviously getting back to the levels when he took office during the crash is ok. But what we need is levels from at least 6 months before that. If he's smart enough, that's the message now. "This is headed in the right direction, but the next goal is ......"

[Predicto]

This was completely inevitable. We were in a horrible decline in 2008, and whatever candidate won and whatever that new President did, the next few years were going to suck for the economy and the President was going to get blamed. Many insider GOP operatives were happy when McCain lost in 2008, because they knew that 2009-2012 was going to be an economic suckfest of major proportions that was going to stain whoever was in office.

Now we are pulling out of the worst of it, and the next few years are going to be much better, and whatever candidate wins and whatever the President does, he is going to get massive credit for that improvement which is largely beyond his control.

Presidents only affect the economy at the margins. The economy moves on long term trends influenced by policies created years and decades earlier. The key to political success is to be the guy in office and get all the accolades when things go well, even if you had not very much to do with it. Just ask Bill Clinton.

[Chump Bailey]

This article is stating the new rate to be 8.2%:http://www.cnbc.com/id/49290835

Well, apparently this article is incorrect. My apologies...

[Hersh]

This article is stating the new rate to be 8.2%:http://www.cnbc.com/id/49290835

Well, apparently this article is incorrect. My apologies...

The article isn't incorrect because it wasn't stating facts of what happened today. It was written yesterday before the report came out about what economist had expected to happen today. Fortunately for the country, the news is better than expected.

[Elessar78]

The funny thing is that the stock market will probably surge because of this report and people will feel good and start buying. But the reality is that the situation didn't change all that much for 97% of Americans.

The economy (and money) is psychological. If people simply would not adjust spending because of factors irrelevant to their own circumstance then maybe we wouldn't be in these predicaments. When negative news about the economy comes out the correct behavior needs is counter intuitive. We need people to spend to spur the economy. Stock market going down? People need to look at it as stocks going on sale and not go into cash.

[twa]

It is an estimate. These numbers are always estimates. We do not survey every single American every month to ask them whether or not they are working.

Are the revised numbers also estimates?(rhetorical question :))

Why is the U-6 unchanged?
ether there was about 600k hired part-time or somethings off.

btw, I don't pay a accountant to estimate , I can do that just fine ;)

Elessar78....my wife has been stimulating the hell out of the economy :silly:

[PeterMP]

Are the revised numbers also estimates?(rhetorical question :))

Why is the U-6 unchanged?
ether there was about 600k hired part-time or somethings off.

btw, I don't pay a accountant to estimate , I can do that just fine ;)

Elessar78....my wife has been stimulating the hell out of the economy :silly:
Or a large number of people that were happy working part time jobs now want full time jobs:

"In September, the number of part-time workers who would like full-time jobs surged by 582,000. That represents about two-thirds of the increase in employment last month and is larger than the drop in the number of unemployed. That’s why the U-6 stayed at 14.7% in September."

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/10/05/why-did-the-unemployment-rate-drop-9/

I'd bet if you look at history, it happens quite a bit. People have kids home and other things going in in the summer. They are happy to not work full time. We have a secretary that wants to NOT work in the summer, most summers doesn't and was asked to work this summer because somebody else got hurt, and did it, but not happily.

Fall starts kids go back to school you have time during the day to work more w/o worrying about day care costs and Christmas and the related bills are now coming soon.

[twa]

That should be in the seasonal adjustment already Peter

IF things are improving we will see the unemployed and participation rates rising as more attempt to get into the job market.
the full times jobs added are below what is needed to simply hold the rate steady

[Wrong Direction]

If headlines were reality, everything would be wonderful.

Every GDP number being reported is terrible. Manufacturing has been down again. The participation rate is far far far below where it was even on January 1 of 2012, and boom, in the middle of the hottest election cycle, the government releases a rosy headline number.

Take it how you will, but for every headline number that's good, there are 10 that are very bad. This story will only have whatever legs the media can give to it.

[Larry]

. . . for every headline number that's good, there are 10 that are very bad.

. . . if you know where to look.

[Elessar78]

More gray cloud stuff but what are the nature of the jobs created? Low paying? High paying? Skilled labor? White collar? Minimum wage?

[PeterMP]

That should be in the seasonal adjustment already Peter

IF things are improving we will see the unemployed and participation rates rising as more attempt to get into the job market.
the full times jobs added are below what is needed to simply hold the rate steady
I'm pretty sure that U-6 isn't seasonally adjusted.

As I point out everytime this topic comes up, it isn't surprising that our participation rate is falling.

That's what happens when people retire.

And yes I'm aware of your chart that shows the % of older people staying in jobs is going up, but that percentage still puts them below where we were as a population and a country 10 years ago and even 5 years ago.

[twa]

More gray cloud stuff but what are the nature of the jobs created? Low paying? High paying? Skilled labor? White collar? Minimum wage?

The median wage trend has not been good so far(except in Texas and a few others;))

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-09-26/red-blue-states-income-economy/57846600/1

[Wrong Direction]

Jim Pethakoukis is tearing this jobs report apart. Here's some of what he had to say:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/the-sickly-stagnant-september-jobs-report/


1...As the Labor Department noted:

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.0 million in August to 8.6 million in September. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

2. And take-home pay? Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by just 1.8 percent. When you take inflation into account, wages are flat to down.

3. The broader U-6 rate — which takes into account part-time workers who want full-time work and lots of discouraged workers who’ve given up looking — stayed unchanged at 14.7%.

4. The shrunken workforce remains shrunken. If the labor force participation rate was the same as when President Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.7%. If the participation rate had just stayed steady since the start of the year, the unemployment rate would be 8.4% vs. 8.3%. Where’s the progress? Here is RDQ Economics:

Such a rapid decline in the unemployment rate would be consistent with 4%–5% real economic growth historically but much of the decline is accounted for by people dropping out of the labor force (over the last year the employment-population ratio has risen to only 58.7% from 58.4%). We believe part of the drop in the unemployment rate over the last two months is a statistical quirk (the household data show an increase in employment of 873,000 in September, which is completely implausible and likely a result of sampling volatility). Moreover, declining labor force participation over the last year (resulting in 1.1 million people disappearing from the labor force) accounts for much of the rest of the decline.

5. As ... a chart originally produced by Team Obama ... even the artificially depressed 7.8% unemployment rate is way above the 5.6% unemployment rate the White House predicted for September 2012 if Congress passed the $800 billion stimulus package back in 2009.

6. The 114,000 jobs created would have been a good number … but for 1962, not 2012. The U.S. economy needs 2-3 times that number every month to close the jobs gap (which is the number of jobs that the U.S. economy needs to create in order to return to pre-recession employment levels while also absorbing the people who enter the labor force each month.) At 114,000 jobs a month, the jobs gap would not close until after 2025, according to the Hamilton Project.

7. We are still on pace to create fewer jobs this year than last year. In 2012, employment growth has averaged 146,000 per month, compared with an average monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011.

8. White House economist Alan Krueger says the jobs numbers are ”further evidence” the economy is healing. But he’s wrong.

The employment-population ratio, which merely shows how many folks have jobs as a share of the civilian population, was 58.7%. Now that’s up from last month. But it is still far below where it was in June 2009, 59.4%,when the recession officially ended. And it’s even further below the 63% level before the downturn.

[steve09ru]

while this is good and progress has been made...we are also right where we were in January 2009 (7.8%) - I'd like to see the total adult #'s compared to total adults employed over the last 8 years...that's where I think you can really tell where everything sits.

And just comparing this to the early-mid 80's: we were at 10.8% in November of '82 and was able to get that to 7.8% in February of '84 (total of 16 months). Compare that to a 10% high in October of '09 - it took us until October of '12 to get it to 7.8% (36 months).

[Elessar78]

The median wage trend has not been good so far(except in Texas and a few others;))

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-09-26/red-blue-states-income-economy/57846600/1

from the article:


The big drivers of red state income growth: energy and government benefit payments such as food stamps.

???

[PeterMP]

Unseasonally adjusted U-3 fell from 8.2 to 7.6%. Unseasonally adjusted U6 fell from 14.6% to 14.2%.

Seasonally adjsuted U-3 fell from 8.1% to 7.8% and U6 was unchanged at 14.7%

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab15.htm

So people saying U-6 is unchanged are looking at the seasonally adjusted number.

[Wrong Direction]

More from Peth...
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/economist-unemployment-drop-implausible-a-statistical-quirk/


here is the entire, eye-opening note from economists John Ryding and Conrad DeQuadros of RDQ Economics:


This report is a tale of two labor markets. The establishment survey (payrolls) painted a picture of moderately growing employment over the last three months but at a marginally slower pace than over the last year. At this pace of job creation, the unemployment rate should be barely drifting lower given underlying demographic trends. In contrast, the household survey painted a picture of a sharply falling unemployment rate—down 1.2% points over the last 12 months. Such a rapid decline in the unemployment rate would be consistent with 4%–5% real economic growth historically but much of the decline is accounted for by people dropping out of the labor force (over the last year the employment-population ratio has risen to only 58.7% from 58.4%). We believe part of the drop in the unemployment rate over the last two months is a statistical quirk (the household data show an increase in employment of 873,000 in September, which is completely implausible and likely a result of sampling volatility). Moreover, declining labor force participation over the last year (resulting in 1.1 million people disappearing from the labor force) accounts for much of the rest of the decline. With this report, the ISMs, and vehicle sales, the September economy is off to a better-than-expected start but nowhere near as good as suggested by the decline in the unemployment rate.

Of course, the economy is not growing 4-5%, not even half that. This a jobs recovery built on part-time jobs, falling wages, and disappeared discouraged workers. As JPMorgan’s econ team noted: “The one asterisk to the good news from the household survey was the apparent low-quality composition of the jobs created, as there was a surge in people working part-time for economic reasons, a development which left the widely-followed U-6 broad measure of underemployment unchanged at 14.7%.”

[Wrong Direction]

And finally, this one:
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/873000-jobs-last-time-the-economy-added-that-many-it-was-growing-at-a-white-hot-9-3/


Economic consulting firm IHS Global Insight:


The household employment estimate is subject to a bigger sampling error than the payroll estimate. Its 873,000 increase is a huge statistical outlier on the upside.

Look at it this way: Back in June 1983, the economy added about 900,000 jobs, according to that same household survey. During the second quarter of 1983, the quarter that month falls in, the economy grew at an astronomical 9.3% annual rate. The supply-side Reagan Boom was in full swing.

Right now, in the third quarter of 2012, economists think the economy is growing at an an anemic 1.5% or so. So the economy was growing six times as fast in 1983 when it was adding that many jobs. Hmmmm ….

This is a fraud, people.

[twa]

So people saying U-6 is unchanged are looking at the seasonally adjusted number.

Isn't that what you are supposed to do for a apple to apple comparision?

[PeterMP]

Isn't that what you are supposed to do for a apple to apple comparision?
I think that makes the most sense. I was just trying to clarrify in the context of the previous post.

---------- Post added October-5th-2012 at 02:10 PM ----------


And finally, this one:
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/873000-jobs-last-time-the-economy-added-that-many-it-was-growing-at-a-white-hot-9-3/


This is a fraud, people.
Just real basic stuff, but talking about one thing as a percent (i.e. percentage economy is growing) and another thing as a raw number (i.e. 900,000 jobs) and then try and compare them just shows a poor understanding of how to think about numbers and do data analysis.

If somebody was going to do that and try and make the argument that it was actually a useful comparision, they'd better be willing to come up with some good reasons why doing that makes any sense w/ respect to the particular numbers they presenting.

A basic example- Given the same percentage growth the state of TX is going to produce more jobs in absolute terms then the economy of DE growing the same percentage amount.

The US and the golbal economy are much different than in the 1980's. Right off the bat, the popluation is larger and older.

[DjTj]

More from Peth...
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/economist-unemployment-drop-implausible-a-statistical-quirk/The part of this that I disagree with is the outright dismissal of the 873,000 job number from the household survey as "completely implausible." There is likely some volatility (and the BLS itself reports an expected error of +/-100,000 jobs), but the data is what it is, and 600k or 700k jobs would still be good news.

Nobody is saying that the economy is miraculously fixed now, but a 7.8% estimate is better than 8.1%. It is good news even if it is not great news.

For what it's worth, there are a few people offering rebuttals of the job truthers:
Goldman Sachs chief U.S. economist Jan Hatzius isn’t buying the conspiracy theory.

“For the most part, this looks like a genuine move,” he says in a note to clients this morning following the employment report. “It comes alongside large increases in both the labor force (+418,000) and the tally of jobs in the survey of households (+873,000) of which 187,000 was due to government.”http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/10/05/goldman-government-not-cooking-the-books-on-jobs/


We’ve hit that moment in the election when people begin to lose their minds. Case in point, within minutes of the jobs report, Twitter filled with Republicans claiming the books were somehow cooked, the numbers aren’t real, etc.

Let’s take a deep breath. Jobs reports are about the economy, not about the election. Confusing the two leads to very bad analysis.

This is a good jobs report in a still-weak economy. The 114,000 jobs we added in September aren’t very impressive. The revisions to the last two months, which added 86,000 jobs to the total, were much more impressive. Those revisions also suggest that September’s jobs could get revised up — or, of course, down. So be careful about reading too much into that number. Still, these are, at best, good, not great, numbers.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/05/september-jobs-report-debunking-the-jobs-report-conspiracy-theories/

This whole controversy is really over about 0.3% in the unemployment rate, and I believe that is within the margin of error. The economy is about the same. It's maybe improving a little bit. That's all we can really get from the data.

[Wrong Direction]

I think that makes the most sense. I was just trying to clarrify in the context of the previous post.

---------- Post added October-5th-2012 at 02:10 PM ----------


Just real basic stuff, but talking about one thing as a percent (i.e. percentage economy is growing) and another thing as a raw number (i.e. 900,000 jobs) and then try and compare them just shows a poor understanding of how to think about numbers and do data analysis.

If somebody was going to do that and try and make the argument that it was actually a useful comparision, they'd better be willing to come up with some good reasons why doing that makes any sense w/ respect to the particular numbers they presenting.

A basic example- Given the same percentage growth the state of TX is going to produce more jobs in absolute terms then the economy of DE growing the same percentage amount.

The US and the golbal economy are much different than in the 1980's. Right off the bat, the popluation is larger and older.

Ok, we'll chalk this one up to a statistical quirk and assume that anemic GDP growth has no correlation with jobs growth. Maybe we're seeing jobs growth leading GDP growth this time around, as opposed to what history would say?

Maybe this is all due to the release of the new iPhone?

I'm sorry, but when numbers like this come out that have no relation to any other economic trend, I get suspicious. There's no law change, economic change, or political change that explains a sudden and sharp change. Perhaps the last two poor jobs reports were also "statistical anomolies" that coincidentally had the effect of making this report look much more positive right in the middle of election season?

As the rest of the Pethokoukis blogs point out, the larger jobs picture is 1) worse now than in 2011 and 2) only appearing better because 1.2 million people (demographically adjusted, so this isn't about old people) have dropped out of the denominator.

[Predicto]

Just real basic stuff, but talking about one thing as a percent (i.e. percentage economy is growing) and another thing as a raw number (i.e. 900,000 jobs) and then try and compare them just shows a poor understanding of how to think about numbers and do data analysis.


No, it shows a very good understanding of how to write a blog for the National Review or any other partisan source (left or right) that is more about driving the narrative than about objective analysis. National Review understands that it is important to blunt this message before it takes hold in the public consciousness as good news for Obama.

You saw the same thing in the left wing blogs that were talking about Big Bird yesterday morning rather than about Obama's flat performance in the debate.

[Wrong Direction]

Nobody is saying that the economy is miraculously fixed now, but a 7.8% estimate is better than 8.1%. It is good news even if it is not great news.

You seem like a nice, reasonable and smart guy (as does PeterMP), so forgive me if I come across the wrong way. However, I don't think this even hits the standard of good news compared to what the economy needs to recover from the great recession. Statistical quirk is about all I can take from this, perhaps with an added description of "relatively good, but only when compared to other putrid recent economic reports."

No, Mr. President, this is not evidence that we need to stay the course. Far from it.

[DjTj]

As the rest of the Pethokoukis blogs point out, the larger jobs picture is 1) worse now than in 2011 and 2) only appearing better because 1.2 million people (demographically adjusted, so this isn't about old people) have dropped out of the denominator.The piece you cited doesn't say that the drop in labor participation is demographically adjusted. Where did you see that? And how has it been adjusted?

Here is a piece from last month that attributes these numbers to a long-term trend: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/09/12/misunderstanding_declines_in_labor_force_participa tion_99874.html

[Wrong Direction]

No, it shows a very good understanding of how to write a blog for the National Review or any other partisan source (left or right) that is more about driving the narrative than about objective analysis.

The timing and totally out of the ordinary nature of this report doesn't make you wonder, honestly?

Look, I genuinely hope I'm wrong. If the economy were growing at 3-5% with job creation regularly in the 200,000+ minimum range, I'd probably still be against he President but only because I have a different vision for where things like entitlements/foreign policy should go moving forward. I'd be much less adamant, even though the metrics above are really the bare minimum of what this country needs right now.

---------- Post added October-5th-2012 at 02:49 PM ----------


The piece you cited doesn't say that the drop in labor participation is demographically adjusted. Where did you see that? And how has it been adjusted?

Here is a piece from last month that attributes these numbers to a long-term trend: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/09/12/misunderstanding_declines_in_labor_force_participa tion_99874.html


At this pace of job creation, the unemployment rate should be barely drifting lower given underlying demographic trends.

I underlined it in post #67. The point there was about the 2012 rates overall, not a monthly change.

[Predicto]

The timing and totally out of the ordinary nature of this report doesn't make you wonder, honestly?



No, because I know how BLS works, just like SkinsHokieFan does.

The immediacy of the ATTACKS on the report by places like National Review should be far more telling to you. They didn't even have time to digest the report before they published the attacks on it. There is a reason for that.






Look, I genuinely hope I'm wrong. If the economy were growing at 3-5% with job creation regularly in the 200,000+ minimum range, I'd probably still be against he President but only because I have a different vision for where things like entitlements/foreign policy should go moving forward. I'd be much less adamant, even though the metrics above are really the bare minimum of what this country needs right now.

We were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama was elected. That is not an exaggeration. 10 million jobs per year. It takes years to pull out of a free fall like that with an economy this large. We are not nearly back to normal. The only thing that is good about this report is the trends continue to get a little better. No one is claiming otherwise.

[NLC1054]

If the unemployment number had gone up .1%, Republicans would be jumping up and down talking about how everything has gotten worse and Obama is the worst President in history and this recovery sucks and it's not working.

Unemployment goes down and lo and behold, there's something deeply flawed with the jobs report. It's not like Mitt Romney has campaigned for the last year on the very jobs report using the same methodology that is now, somehow, horribly flawed and now there's a conspiracy of massive proportions.

There's a way to look at the jobs numbers and argue that "yes, things are back to where we they were in 2009, but this recovery is still too slow, and my plan would help further shrink the unemployment number and do it this way." That's what I never get. Instead of taking the number and making it work to their political advantage, they make themselves look foolish by talking about how the jobs report doesn't make sense and it doesn't work, even though it's the same thing Mitt Romney has been campaigning on.

It makes him look like a massive hypocrite, which is the kind of thing you don't want in the face of having a very good showing coming off the debates.

[Dan T.]

It's hilarious the conniption fit this has generated among conservatives. They're tripping over themselves to discredit this minor piece of good news.

[NLC1054]

The timing and totally out of the ordinary nature of this report doesn't make you wonder, honestly?

No. Unemployment has been trending down very slowly but steadily over the course of the year. The jobs report comes out at the same time every single month; on the first Friday of the month. The timing is only curious if you're looking for a reason to believe that somehow there's a conspiracy at foot.

---------- Post added October-5th-2012 at 02:58 PM ----------


It's hilarious the conniption fit this has generated among conservatives. They're tripping over themselves to discredit this minor piece of good news.

It's bizarre and disheartening the way they are desperately pretending good news for the American people is always some sort of bad thing.

[DjTj]

I underlined it in post #67. The point there was about the 2012 rates overall, not a monthly change.It doesn't say that the 1.1 million number is demographically adjusted. It appears to me that the 1.1 million number is a real number, not an adjusted number.

And wouldn't another explanation for the disconnect between growth and unemployment rate be the fact that many of the jobs are part-time jobs or lower paying jobs? GDP growth should be tied to productivity, not strictly to employment. There are many factors that could cause a drop in unemployment that is not proportional to growth in GDP.

[Dan T.]

Fox News web page headline:

Jobless Rate Dips Under 8 Percent... But is the Number Real

Fox Nation web page headline:

Jobs Report Too Good to Be True? Wealth Manager Says, 'No Way in the World These Numbers Are Accurate'

[Popeman38]

No, it shows a very good understanding of how to write a blog for the National Review or any other partisan source (left or right) that is more about driving the narrative than about objective analysis. National Review understands that it is important to blunt this message before it takes hold in the public consciousness as good news for Obama.

You saw the same thing in the left wing blogs that were talking about Big Bird yesterday morning rather than about Obama's flat performance in the debate.Thanks you for injecting some sanity. I had typed out several responses, but they all probably would have reulted in a vacation for me, and I don't wanna go on vacation during football season. :ols:

[Hersh]

You seem like a nice, reasonable and smart guy (as does PeterMP), so forgive me if I come across the wrong way. However, I don't think this even hits the standard of good news compared to what the economy needs to recover from the great recession. Statistical quirk is about all I can take from this, perhaps with an added description of "relatively good, but only when compared to other putrid recent economic reports."

No, Mr. President, this is not evidence that we need to stay the course. Far from it.

If the US economy had add 300,000 jobs you'd still be saying the same thing and if unemployment had gone up .3% you'd be posting how it's proof things are going so poorly.

[Buford]

Ok, we'll chalk this one up to a statistical quirk and assume that anemic GDP growth has no correlation with jobs growth. Maybe we're seeing jobs growth leading GDP growth this time around, as opposed to what history would say?

Maybe this is all due to the release of the new iPhone?

I'm sorry, but when numbers like this come out that have no relation to any other economic trend, I get suspicious. There's no law change, economic change, or political change that explains a sudden and sharp change. Perhaps the last two poor jobs reports were also "statistical anomolies" that coincidentally had the effect of making this report look much more positive right in the middle of election season?

As the rest of the Pethokoukis blogs point out, the larger jobs picture is 1) worse now than in 2011 and 2) only appearing better because 1.2 million people (demographically adjusted, so this isn't about old people) have dropped out of the denominator.

If this were the 1st month things have been improving. But look at what's happened since Obama took office. It peaked and now has SLOWLY been heading the right direction. This isn't new. Its been on the edge of 8% for months now. If it broke through right after the election and Romney had won, that changes nothing. Bottom line is that Gov't Jobs have been shrinking and private sector has been growing, and overall the % is back to where it was when this admin can into office. Not to say that the day somebody is sworn in things reset. It takes time to stop a runaway train and then reverse it. Now people should want it to speed up. This is was a recovery looks like when you do it so quickly from such a sharp crash.



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9aS8RpjYUMw/UG8zO6_L6GI/AAAAAAAACKY/57wtVDP8wzg/s1600/10-5-2012+3-20-29+PM.jpg
( from http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/07/us-jobless-unemployment-data#data)

[Wrong Direction]

If the US economy had add 300,000 jobs you'd still be saying the same thing and if unemployment had gone up .3% you'd be posting how it's proof things are going so poorly.

Unfortunatley, we have no clue if this is a true statement because we've seen nothing like that number under Obama.

---------- Post added October-5th-2012 at 04:06 PM ----------


And wouldn't another explanation for the disconnect between growth and unemployment rate be the fact that many of the jobs are part-time jobs or lower paying jobs? GDP growth should be tied to productivity, not strictly to employment. There are many factors that could cause a drop in unemployment that is not proportional to growth in GDP.

Sure, makes sense. What doesn't make sense is a huge jump in seasonally adjusted part time employment without any trend saying that'll happen, major new policy taking effect, or anything else.

---------- Post added October-5th-2012 at 04:08 PM ----------


The jobs report comes out at the same time every single month; on the first Friday of the month. The timing is only curious if you're looking for a reason to believe that somehow there's a conspiracy at foot.

Yes, I know when the jobs report is released every month. The coincidence was in the timing of a huge bounce that is unexplained by trend lines or any other policy. A .3% jump is a huge monthly change. Certainly a statistical surprise, at a minimum.

[Larry]

Yes, I know when the jobs report is released every month. The coincidence was in the timing of a huge bounce that is unexplained by trend lines or any other policy. A .3% jump is a huge monthly change. Certainly a statistical surprise, at a minimum.

You keep making that claim, over and over and over, about how this report just absolutely has to be fake, because it's so unprecedented.

Unfortunately, that's not true, either.

As has already been pointed out, unemployment has been trending downward, for years.

The number of employed has been trending upward, for years.

Yeah, even I have said that if you just look at the unemployment %, then this feels like a sudden jump. But the original post even explains that, too. The gains of the last two months (which, I observe, Republicans in here have been trying to ignore as merely estimates) were actually not optimistic enough.

In short, this isn't a case of the numbers suddenly making a big one-month jump. It's been going on for months

[Wrong Direction]

Larry, I genuinely hope you're right. I mean that.

[PeterMP]

As the rest of the Pethokoukis blogs point out, the larger jobs picture is 1) worse now than in 2011 and 2) only appearing better because 1.2 million people (demographically adjusted, so this isn't about old people) have dropped out of the denominator.
Where'd you get 1.2 million people from?

Your link does say:

"Moreover, declining labor force participation over the last year (resulting in 1.1 million people disappearing from the labor force) accounts for much of the rest of the decline."

But it doesn't say that's a demographically adjusted number.

It also says:

"At this pace of job creation, the unemployment rate should be barely drifting lower given underlying demographic trends."

I'd take declinging unemployment rates as a good thing. They certainly are better than the alternative.

Now, since they don't actually give a number (and even if they did w/o telling me how they did it given what they did w/ percentages and absolutes, I'd be dubious), it is hard for me to determine how good. Is 1% "drifting"?

But that certainly seems to disagree w/ what you've said, from your own link!

---------- Post added October-5th-2012 at 04:38 PM ----------


I underlined it in post #67. The point there was about the 2012 rates overall, not a monthly change.
You need to go back and read post #67.

You appear to be remembering what you want. Not what was actually written.

[Wrong Direction]

You appear to be remembering what you want. Not what was actually written.

Now you're just confusing me.

There are two pictures of the jobs situation. One is a longer trend that is pretty anemic. The other is this one monthly number which spiked up. I know how alpha spending works, so I understand that data will spike. I know how data collection works, so I know that slight changes in methods can skew results regardless of intent.

We'll see if this surge in part-time work holds and converts into full-time work for some. If so, it's relatively good news. If not, it's a statistical outlier. Time will tell.

I am trying to think of explanations for this surge. Kids are in school in September, maybe they're working more part time jobs to help pay the bills? Maybe the relatively quiet hurricane season helped? Maybe the previous part-time numbers are showing a trend that I'm not aware of? Other?

[twa]

so we gained less full time jobs than last the last 2 month's revised numbers, added a 10nth of a % on participation rate and dropped .3% if the current numbers hold up?

this makes sense?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OGGFV5PD754/UG7vIVAd6xI/AAAAAAAASUY/ZqLu-J0msYA/s1600/EmployPopSept2012.jpg
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/10/september-employment-report-114000-jobs.html

[PeterMP]

Now you're just confusing me.

I am trying to think of explanations for this surge. Kids are in school in September, maybe they're working more part time jobs to help pay the bills? Maybe the relatively quiet hurricane season helped? Maybe the previous part-time numbers are showing a trend that I'm not aware of? Other?
Go back and read the post I quoted:

"As the rest of the Pethokoukis blogs point out, the larger jobs picture is 1) worse now than in 2011 and 2) only appearing better because 1.2 million people (demographically adjusted, so this isn't about old people) have dropped out of the denominator."

That's not trying think of an explanation of the surge last month. That's talking about what has happened since 2011.

I'll ask again, where are you getting the 1.2 million dmographically adjusted value from, and don't tell me post #67 because I quoted from post #67.

[Larry]

There are two pictures of the jobs situation. One is a longer trend that is pretty anemic. The other is this one monthly number which spiked up.

And you go right back to making what certainly appears to be an untrue claim.

(I can't be more specific, because you aren't being more specific. You just keep declaring the same general thing.)

I go to the BLS web site. Tell it that I want to look at the employment numbers, and pick the following options:

Seasonally Adjusted
Total Nonfarm
All Employees, Thousands
Total Nonfarm
CES0000000001

I look at their data. Total number of jobs in America.

I look at the last 12 months. Here, for the last 12 months, are the total number of jobs, and "how many jobs were added that month?" (Both numbers are in thousands of jobs.)

131806 112
131963 157
132186 223
132461 275
132720 259
132863 143
133018 155
133063 45
133244 181
133386 142
133500 114

(The last two lines are the data for August and September, both of which are considered preliminary.)

There is no sudden spike. It isn't there.

In fact, this number, which you keep trying do dismiss with terms like "spike", "surge", and "outlier", is the third worst month out of the last 12. Two of the last 12 months had twice as much growth. (And a third month almost doubled it.)


At least not in the "total number of jobs" number. If you've got some other yardstick that you're using, then please feel free to 1) Tell us what this yardstick is, and 2) Back up your claims by showing us how (this one number that you think is more important than total number of jobs) is showing a sudden spike.

---------- Post added October-5th-2012 at 06:15 PM ----------


so we gained less full time jobs than last the last 2 month's revised numbers, added a 10nth of a % on participation rate and dropped .3% if the current numbers hold up?

this makes sense?

No. But then most of your posts don't.

(Sorry. Had to.) :)

[Wrong Direction]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-05/u-s-jobless-rate-unexpectedly-falls-to-7-8-114-000-jobs-added.html

The household survey showed an 873,000 increase in employment, the biggest since June 1983, excluding the annual Census population adjustments.

Biggest jump since 1983 with no explanation other than a weak trend line. Sorry, still not buying it.

[Toe Jam]

Could holiday hiring be a factor here?

[Predicto]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-05/u-s-jobless-rate-unexpectedly-falls-to-7-8-114-000-jobs-added.html


Biggest jump since 1983 with no explanation other than a weak trend line. Sorry, still not buying it.


What happened in 1983? Oh, we started pulling out of the last big multiyear recession, as I recall.

The number also appears to be in line with the longer term trends set out in Buford's graph from post 85. :whoknows:

[Wrong Direction]

Leaving now, so I have to leave you and Peter (demographic adjustments) hanging. Sorry guys.

[Wrong Direction]

What is your theory, then?

Either severe statistical outlier or under reporting over the last two + months compensated for in this month.

[mistertim]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-05/u-s-jobless-rate-unexpectedly-falls-to-7-8-114-000-jobs-added.html


Biggest jump since 1983 with no explanation other than a weak trend line. Sorry, still not buying it.

What is your theory, then?

[Predicto]

What is your theory, then?

The theory is that one shouldn't accept it on face value if it could reflect well on Obama. Figure out why later. :)

[PeterMP]

Leaving now, so I have to leave you and Peter (demographic adjustments) hanging. Sorry guys.
You don't have a demographically adjusted number that says 1.1 million.

I'll quote from your own link again:

"Moreover, declining labor force participation over the last year (resulting in 1.1 million people disappearing from the labor force) accounts for much of the rest of the decline."

Nothing about it being the demographically adjusted number AND for the LAST YEAR.

"At this pace of job creation, the unemployment rate should be barely drifting lower given underlying demographic trends."

(It has nothing to do w/ the report from this month.)

Taking into account demographic trends unemployment is down. In otherwords, when you take into account the people that we expect to be leaving the work force because of age, we are seeing more people have jobs.

Now, curiously, your link likes to give numbers, but it doesn't actually give that number. We're left to imagine what "barely drifting" is. Seems like if you took the time to determine the number, it would have been easy enough to actually plug it in there.

You misread, misundestood, accidently misrepresented, or out and out lied about the information from your own link.

**EDIT**
And then after being called on it, said you were only trying to figure out what happened last month.

[Larry]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-05/u-s-jobless-rate-unexpectedly-falls-to-7-8-114-000-jobs-added.html


Biggest jump since 1983 with no explanation other than a weak trend line. Sorry, still not buying it.

OK, at least now I see what you're talking about. (And you've got a point.)

[Predicto]

I stole this from a different board, but it seems accurate.

REACTION THE GOP SHOULD HAVE HAD: "Yes, these job numbers are not quite as bad as some of the other recent unemployment numbers, but our guy can do better. Here's Mitt Romney's plan to speed up thIs very weak month-to-month recovery..."

REACTION THE GOP ACTUALLY HAD: "OBUMMER CHICAGO POLITICS! HE FAKED THE NUMBERS AND COOKED THE BOOKS! MEDIA CONSPIRACY!"

[twa]

REACTION THE GOP ACTUALLY HAD: "OBUMMER CHICAGO POLITICS! HE FAKED THE NUMBERS AND COOKED THE BOOKS! MEDIA CONSPIRACY!"

They went Maddow/Matthews on ya? :ols:

[NLC1054]

I stole this from a different board, but it seems accurate.

REACTION THE GOP SHOULD HAVE HAD: "Yes, these job numbers are not quite as bad as some of the other recent unemployment numbers, but our guy can do better. Here's Mitt Romney's plan to speed up thIs very weak month-to-month recovery..."

REACTION THE GOP ACTUALLY HAD: "OBUMMER CHICAGO POLITICS! HE FAKED THE NUMBERS AND COOKED THE BOOKS! MEDIA CONSPIRACY!"

Given the reasonable, smart option that makes them appear to be a great alternative to the Democratic Party, and the bat**** insane option that makes them look increasingly desperate and straight up dumb, the GOP has a strict policy of choosing the latter.

This whole campaign has been in exercise in their being completely legitimate ways in which to attack Obama, and the GOP forgetting those avenues and trafficking in conspiracy theories and mind numbing policy decisions.

[Burgold]

I stole this from a different board, but it seems accurate.

REACTION THE GOP SHOULD HAVE HAD: "Yes, these job numbers are not quite as bad as some of the other recent unemployment numbers, but our guy can do better. Here's Mitt Romney's plan to speed up thIs very weak month-to-month recovery..."

REACTION THE GOP ACTUALLY HAD: "OBUMMER CHICAGO POLITICS! HE FAKED THE NUMBERS AND COOKED THE BOOKS! MEDIA CONSPIRACY!"

I think that's the way to go. I mean it would be a pretty easy way to go to say, "Gee, look how bad it is that 7.8 is now considered a good number!"

The denial route or blow it up route is just not as smart. More, it's worse for the country. Confidence is an amazing tool. It breeds on itself. Success leads to success.

[twa]

No. But then most of your posts don't.

(Sorry. Had to.) :)

:ols:..try this then

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/05/understanding-todays-employment-numbers/
In fact, if you look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics report, it’s unlikely that anything has been manipulated — which would be hard to do without being caught anyway — because you can see exactly how the change happened. Here’s the net-net:

net 114,000 new full-time jobs
net 456,000 people who left the unemployed list — discouraged or whatever
net 600,000 people added to part-time workers.

What distinguishes part-time workers from full-time? In general, part-time workers don’t get benefits — like health insurance.

What these numbers seem to be telling us is that it’s too expensive to pay for benefits.

[stupidmorals]

...I would like a job, please.

[HeluCopter29]

:ols:..try this then

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/05/understanding-todays-employment-numbers/
In fact, if you look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics report, it’s unlikely that anything has been manipulated — which would be hard to do without being caught anyway — because you can see exactly how the change happened. Here’s the net-net:

net 114,000 new full-time jobs
net 456,000 people who left the unemployed list — discouraged or whatever
net 600,000 people added to part-time workers.

What distinguishes part-time workers from full-time? In general, part-time workers don’t get benefits — like health insurance.

What these numbers seem to be telling us is that it’s too expensive to pay for benefits.

If you truly believe that the "job creators" can't afford to pay benefits, you're kidding yourself. Believe me, I know some of them.

[zoony]

Threads like this make it real clear who the bad Americans are. GTFO of the country you partisan, anti-american jackasses.

[twa]

If you truly believe that the "job creators" can't afford to pay benefits, you're kidding yourself. Believe me, I know some of them.

Too expensive does not equate to unaffordable (except in a dictionary)

In real life we judge the value vs need+benefit , it is not a charity nor a obligation

[twa]

What happened in 1983? Oh, we started pulling out of the last big multiyear recession, as I recall.



Do you recall what the GDP was doing then? ... growing at a 9.3% rate.

The rise from the household survey is odd

[Larry]

I think that's the way to go. I mean it would be a pretty easy way to go to say, "Gee, look how bad it is that 7.8 is now considered a good number!"

The denial route or blow it up route is just not as smart. More, it's worse for the country. Confidence is an amazing tool. It breeds on itself. Success leads to success.

But they don't want success.

(And, more importantly, they don't want people to feel like there's been success.)

[Elessar78]

:ols:..try this then

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/05/understanding-todays-employment-numbers/
In fact, if you look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics report, it’s unlikely that anything has been manipulated — which would be hard to do without being caught anyway — because you can see exactly how the change happened. Here’s the net-net:

net 114,000 new full-time jobs
net 456,000 people who left the unemployed list — discouraged or whatever
net 600,000 people added to part-time workers.

What distinguishes part-time workers from full-time? In general, part-time workers don’t get benefits — like health insurance.

What these numbers seem to be telling us is that it’s too expensive to pay for benefits.

To me, this is the beauty of the Affordable Health Care Act. Now employers don't feel that they HAVE to offer health insurance which means they can hire the worker. Sure, there can be a $2,000 penalty per employee for not providing adequate insurance but that's a pittance compared to what it actually costs to offer coverage. On the flip side, a worker who is reluctant to take a job because it doesn't offer health care can choose such a job. If I was the employer, I'd just reduce the salary by the same amount. Would an unemployed person really not take a job for less than $100/paycheck?

[Larry]

:ols:..try this then

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/05/understanding-todays-employment-numbers/
In fact, if you look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics report, it’s unlikely that anything has been manipulated — which would be hard to do without being caught anyway — because you can see exactly how the change happened. Here’s the net-net:

net 114,000 new full-time jobs
net 456,000 people who left the unemployed list — discouraged or whatever
net 600,000 people added to part-time workers.

What distinguishes part-time workers from full-time? In general, part-time workers don’t get benefits — like health insurance.

What these numbers seem to be telling us is that it’s too expensive to pay for benefits.

That's funny. Cause the first few paragraphs of the OP say:


WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years and giving President Barack Obama a potential boost with the election a month away.

The rate declined from 8.1 percent because the number of people who said they were employed soared by 873,000 — an encouraging sign for an economy that's been struggling to create enough jobs.

The number of unemployed Americans is now 12.1 million, the fewest since January 2009.

The Labor Department said employers added 114,000 jobs in September. It also said the economy created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than the department had initially estimated.

Wages rose in September. And more people started looking for work.

And heck, I thought you were from Texas.

Back when Rick Perry was running, you kept telling us over and over how the only number that mattered was that Texas had more net jobs.

That the fact that it also had more unemployed people? Not important.
The were mostly minimum wage? Not important.
No benefits? Not important.

Only thing that mattered was that the total number of jobs went up.

---------- Post added October-5th-2012 at 08:49 PM ----------

Looking at the opening for the OP, though, I'm seeing something that feels funny, to me:


WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years and giving President Barack Obama a potential boost with the election a month away.

The rate declined from 8.1 percent because the number of people who said they were employed soared by 873,000 — an encouraging sign for an economy that's been struggling to create enough jobs.

The number of unemployed Americans is now 12.1 million, the fewest since January 2009.

The Labor Department said employers added 114,000 jobs in September. It also said the economy created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than the department had initially estimated.

Wages rose in September. And more people started looking for work.

These numbers at least look, to me, like they conflict with each other.

[twa]

Net jobs matter Larry, but I was not drawing them from a household survey
Median income was also rising in Texas(funny how that happened with minimum wage jobs)

I've said repeatedly the unemployment rate will rise if a recovery is truly happening....just as people flock to Texas for jobs,they will seek them

---------- Post added October-5th-2012 at 08:04 PM ----------


But they don't want success.

(And, more importantly, they don't want people to feel like there's been success.)

Feelings are funny things....as the study showing partisans create their own reality is.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Threads like this make it real clear who the bad Americans are. GTFO of the country you partisan, anti-american jackasses.

I was going to reply to this with something but instead I'll just quote it for truth. The GOP hacks got their marching orders and they set off goose stepping, here and abundantly on my facebook. There are no less than 3 people who are actual friends of mine who I have honestly lost an incredible amount of respect or today. I expected so much more, but what I got was conspiracy. Disgusting!

[Larry]

Just playing around with the BLS data that I posted about, earlier.

Looks like, if you say Obama took office Feb 1st of 09, then on average, the economy has added 15k jobs/month. Which probably doesn't exactly sound terrific, but that number includes a LOT of months where the number of jobs went DOWN. .

[twa]

These numbers at least look, to me, like they conflict with each other.

They complement,not conflict
the 114K is full time jobs from businesses reporting(which does not include all business), the other is simply homes surveyed(reflected in the 600K part time jobs reported)

I'm just not seeing the home survey numbers reflected elsewhere
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157841/nongovernment-job-creation-stalls.aspx

odd

[AsburySkinsFan]

Like I told one of my friends today twa, this is a very convenient situation you've developed; if the number goes up then that shows Obama is bad, and if the number goes down then obviously the books are cooked. When I pointed this out my friend backed up and then said that hese numbers are pointless anyways. I have yet to see any greater dishonesty than what I've seen fom the Right in response to this 7.8. Simply disgusting, the Right should feel the shame it has drawn upon itself. Shame.

[HeluCopter29]

Too expensive does not equate to unaffordable (except in a dictionary)

In real life we judge the value vs need+benefit , it is not a charity nor a obligation

An excellent case for higher taxes on the top and a larger public sector. Thanks twa.

Yeah, they can afford investing money and making more jobs but they don't need either of those things so they're not going to do it.

So let's just give them more money to do nothing with.

[zoony]

Here's a funny read.

Why weren't these numbers questioned by our noble truth seekers? :ols: :ols:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?349094-LATimes-Dismal-jobs-report-shows-unemployment-rising-to-9.2

[Buford]

Here's a funny read.

Why weren't these numbers questioned by our noble truth seekers? :ols: :ols:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?349094-LATimes-Dismal-jobs-report-shows-unemployment-rising-to-9.2

brutal. Some of the loudest folks questioning numbers today here just fine taking them at face value then.

[twa]

How are the apologists doing?

---------- Post added October-5th-2012 at 10:18 PM ----------


An excellent case for higher taxes on the top and a larger public sector. Thanks twa.

Yeah, they can afford investing money and making more jobs but they don't need either of those things so they're not going to do it.

So let's just give them more money to do nothing with.

I have no problem with you raising their taxes.....just don't whine when it doesn't work like you plan :ols:

Typical entitled mentality

maybe they over sampled the DC area?:evilg:

Take me down to the parasite city
http://washingtonexaminer.com/take-me-down-to-the-parasite-city/article/2504159?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UG-3R1Ykmh9
:ols:

[RedskinsFan44]

How are the apologists doing?

---------- Post added October-5th-2012 at 10:18 PM ----------



I have no problem with you raising their taxes.....just don't whine when it doesn't work like you plan :ols:

Typical entitled mentality

maybe they over sampled the DC area?:evilg:

Take me down to the parasite city
http://washingtonexaminer.com/take-me-down-to-the-parasite-city/article/2504159?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UG-3R1Ykmh9
:ols:

Great thing about DC is that there is plenty of work for political pundits to write garbage that contributes nothing to society. But I imagine you feel the same about the EPA scientist who studies the effects of chemicals on people's health.

Back on topic, I think the President's line about the jobs number shouldn't be an excuse to criticize the economy was pretty lame. Glad things are improving, but 7.8% is not a good number.

[aREDSKIN]

From a source. cannot vouch for the veracity or accuracy of it just providing it for a point of clarity.



The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, a number certain to impact the presidential race.

Pundits have been saying for months this number had to drop below 8 percent for it not to be a hindrance to President Obama's reelection chances.

The economy added 114,000 nonfarm payrolls in the month according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics with gains in healthcare, transportation and warehousing.

Truly shocking in the report was that the number of unemployed people dropped by 456,000 to 12.1 million.

Maybe more shocking, total employment, as measured by the Household Survey, rose by 873,000 in September to 142,974,000, the biggest one month jump since June 1983.

As such, total employment now stands at the highest level it's been since December 2008 before Obama was inaugurated.

But even more mysterious is the divergence in the two surveys done by the Labor Department.

The Household Survey showed a gain of 873,000 people employed in September - resulting in the surprise drop in the unemployment rate - while the Establishment Survey only showed a rise of 114,000.

Hmmm.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/05/number-employed-people-rises-873000-september-highest-december-2008



Perhaps the DOL/BLS just changed the gov't definition or interpretation of "unemployed".

IMO no ways are these new unemployment stats accurate. Just more political pandering. It is what it is in DC

[skinfan2k]

i love you who think they doctored the unemployment #s. Then why would Obama only start now to get the unemployment number down lol

[twa]

Joe Scarborough: Jobs Report Numbers 'Don't Add Up'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/joe-scarborough-jobs-report-numbers_n_1942430.html

[AsburySkinsFan]

Joe Scarborough: Jobs Report Numbers 'Don't Add Up'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/joe-scarborough-jobs-report-numbers_n_1942430.html

Not understanding the math is only taken as conspiracy by the Right who are under the firm belief that just because they don't get it must mean that there is a conspiracy.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 09:17 AM ----------



IMO no ways are these new unemployment stats accurate. Just more political pandering. It is what it is in DC

Well thank heavens you arrived with your well founded talking poi.....errr....marching orders from Newsbusters.
BTW, we already saw that same set of marching orders from the Rightwing yesterday.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 09:27 AM ----------


i love you who think they doctored the unemployment #s. Then why would Obama only start now to get the unemployment number down lol

No kidding. The hackery and conspiracy lunacy was immediate with the Right. No sooner did the 7.8 come out than they were screaming fraud. Pathetic and shameful, but heck there be an election to win.
Heck even Romney and Boehner acknowledge the numbers are getting better and they don't go all conspiracy. Granted Romney miscontrued what the report said when he said that it was because people stopped looking, which is not what the report said.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-romney-clash-sept-jobs-report-155746409--election.html

[mistertim]

Perhaps the DOL/BLS just changed the gov't definition or interpretation of "unemployed".

IMO no ways are these new unemployment stats accurate. Just more political pandering. It is what it is in DC

So you're saying that the Obama administration is involved in a conspiracy to change or manipulate the numbers provided by the BLS? Can you give us a realistic scenario where that would 1) be possible, considering how separate they make sure everything at the BLS is from other agencies and politics, and 2) if there was a conspiracy by the Obama admin to do this how they would successfully keep it quiet considering how many individuals are involved in data collection and analysis at many different levels in the BLS?

[AsburySkinsFan]

So you're saying that the Obama administration is involved in a conspiracy to change or manipulate the numbers provided by the BLS? Can you give us a realistic scenario where that would 1) be possible, considering how separate they make sure everything at the BLS is from other agencies and politics, and 2) if there was a conspiracy by the Obama admin to do this how they would successfully keep it quiet considering how many individuals are involved in data collection and analysis at many different levels in the BLS?

I'm dying to hear how this is answered.
I think this whole discussion should be halted until such a time as those implying conspiracy and fraud put up or shut up.

[Larry]

The Household Survey showed a gain of 873,000 people employed in September - resulting in the surprise drop in the unemployment rate - while the Establishment Survey only showed a rise of 114,000.

Hmmm.

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, I have more credibility than Newsbusters.

But those two numbers seem to dispute each other, to me, too.

Now, near as I can tell, this household survey is the way these numbers have always been produced. Not one person has come up with any reason at all to go all "Obama changed the way they do the numbers".


(Which, however, doesn't prevent people from pulling "I do not in any way vouch for this source. I'm simply quoting what they say, and then running with what they hint at, and flat out declaring it.")

But, at least until somebody can give me some kind of reason why those two numbers seem so different, (heck, even a simple assurance of "well, there's always a big difference between those two numbers"), I certainly think that maybe a little skepticism is still due.

(OTOH, I will also observe that, even if you simply completely toss out the household survey numbers, all the other numbers say that things are getting better. (Just not as spectacularly). And have been for over a year.)

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 09:56 AM ----------


So you're saying that the Obama administration is involved in a conspiracy to change or manipulate the numbers provided by the BLS? Can you give us a realistic scenario where that would 1) be possible, considering how separate they make sure everything at the BLS is from other agencies and politics, and 2) if there was a conspiracy by the Obama admin to do this how they would successfully keep it quiet considering how many individuals are involved in data collection and analysis at many different levels in the BLS?

Don't forget 3) Why they didn't do this six months ago. (Or, heck. "Before the '10 elections")

[aREDSKIN]

So you're saying that the Obama administration is involved in a conspiracy to change or manipulate the numbers provided by the BLS? Can you give us a realistic scenario where that would 1) be possible, considering how separate they make sure everything at the BLS is from other agencies and politics, and 2) if there was a conspiracy by the Obama admin to do this how they would successfully keep it quiet considering how many individuals are involved in data collection and analysis at many different levels in the BLS?



You really can't be serious? Can you? Bengazi ring a bell? All administrations lie to the people. It's the American way. Our history is ripe with political dissembling.

[twa]

I'm dying to hear how this is answered.
I think this whole discussion should be halted until such a time as those implying conspiracy and fraud put up or shut up.

What about simply incompetence on the administrations part? :evilg:

did they really miss counting nearly 100K govt jobs in July and August while proclaiming how govt workers were being cut????

[skinfan2k]

So obama wants to mess up the numbers for his first 3 years and look bad and suddenly before his reelection, changes the number to look good! right!! if he wanted to doc the number, wouldn't he want to change it to 6.8% lol.

[RedskinsFan44]

You really can't be serious? Can you? Bengazi ring a bell? All administrations lie to the people. It's the American way. Our history is ripe with political dissembling.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

Statement from Obama on the day after the Benghazi attack:


No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

I will grant you that Rice's and Carney's statements were ill advised, and I don't get their purpose, but the idea that Obama denied that it could be terrorism is false.

[Dan T.]

"Bengazi ring a bell?" What a desperate, pathetic comeback. And that goes for Alan West too.

[RedskinsFan44]

Again, 7.8% unemployment is not a good thing to hang your hat on in an election. But then again, neither is etch-a-sketching your policy positions in front of a national audience. But the media tells us it is all great if you do it convincingly, so there you go. If the numbers are cooked the Republicans have ample time to prove it and use the scandal to bring down the Democrats. Otherwise they can look like conspiracy theorists.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So the answer we get from the tin foil hat crowd is...."ummm we trust in truthiness, we need no facts to support what we know to be true."

Gotcha...just don't expect to be taken seriously in the future.

[RedskinsFan44]

Welch: 'I should have put a question mark' on tweet

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82096.html#ixzz28WsSMiM7

[Larry]

Some other fun observations with statistics that I had, while doing some research for this thread.

Where to get the data I'm talking about:

Go to the data site for the BLS (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?ce).
Select "Seasonally adjusted". (And "next form")
"Total nonfarm"
"All Employees, Thousands"
"Total nonfarm"
"Retrieve Data"

This will get you the data for how many total jobs there were in the US, month by month, for the last 10 years. If you go to the top of the page, you can (as I did), tell it that you want to go back to 1999 (and click "go"), to go back further.

From that data, I observe make some observations.

On average, for Obama's administration so far, the economy has added around 15K jobs per month.


Calculation:

Feb 09: 132837 (thousands)
Sep 12: 133500
Change: 663 in 43 months

15.4 K/month[/list]

Now, I assume that 15K/month is a really sucky number. (The economy certainly feels sucky, to me.) So I decide to do some comparison. I decide to compare it against the average for the W administration.

[indent]Calculation:

Feb 01: 132529 (thousands)
Jan 09: 133561
Change: 1032 jobs gained, in 96 months

10.7 Kjobs/month

But then, that calculation of jobs/month factors in all the jobs that were lost at the very end of his administration. (Granted, the Obama calculations factor in all the jobs lost at the beginning of his, too. So it certainly seems like a valid "apples to apples", to me. But maybe I should exclude that big crash.)

I decide to look at W's first term, only.


Calculation:

Feb 01: 132529 (thousands)
Jan 05: 132453
Change: -76 jobe, in 48 months.

A loss of 1.6 K jobs/month.

Yes, it seems that, at least if the only yardstick you use is "total number of jobs", Obama's first term showed a profit, and W's first term was a loss.

And yet it seems to be an accepted claim that Obama's economy is the worst in our lifetimes, and W's was great.


Yes, I know. There was a recession when W took office. Anybody out there seriously want to stand up and try to argue that W inherited a worse economy than Obama did? twa? It's not like you have any credibility to lose.

This revelation of these statistics then caused me to look at other things. Maybe see if there are other ways to compare the numbers.

When Obama took office, there were 132,837,000 jobs in the US. It took 37 months (Mar '12) to get the number back up to what it was when he took office.

When W took office, there were 132,529,000 jobs in the US. It was Feb '05, 48 months later, before it got there again.

Again, at least if your yardstick is "total number of jobs in the US", Obama recovered from his recession faster than W did.

----------

Just some humor, involving the numbers that the Right aren't trying to claim are fake.

[aREDSKIN]

So the answer we get from the tin foil hat crowd is...."ummm we trust in truthiness, we need no facts to support what we know to be true."

Gotcha...just don't expect to be taken seriously in the future.


Do what you want but many just don't fall into the chug a lug lemming crowd as many here do.

There are many who dispute the "facts" emanating out of this administration. Believe it or not it's up to you.



"Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former economics adviser to John McCain and the former head the Congressional Budget Office, calls the numbers "implausible."

"Sept. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent due to an extraordinary – but implausible – estimate of 873,000 #jobs in household survey,” said Holtz-Eakin on Twitter.

“The report presented a slew of contradictory data points, with the total employment level soaring despite the low net number,” said CNBC's Jeff Cox.

The Washington Post's Neil Irwin adds, "Weird that payrolls are exactly on forecast but household survey is far better."

And the Wall Street Journal warns that these numbers should be taken "with a grain of salt."


Continues.....http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/jobs-report-met-skepticism_653731.html

[Burgold]

Interesting analysis, Larry.

I like the apples to apples approach.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Welch: 'I should have put a question mark' on tweet

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82096.html#ixzz28WsSMiM7

Holy crap this guy has an account with ES!

When pushed by Cooper on whether he was directly accusing the Obama administration of rigging the numbers, Welch said he had “no evidence” and was “not accusing anybody of anything” but reasserted his belief that the numbers in the report were not possible. “I’m not backing away, I’m not backing away from anything,” he said.

He says "I'm just asking questions" and then....

“Those that don’t like to agree with me say that I am old and senile but it is about asking questions. Does the economy feel like the employment has improved by 6 percent in the last 60 days?” Welch said on Fox.
He added: “You have ideologues in two areas of the government, in the EPA and in Labor, but we’re supposed to assume that the Labor Department could be ideological, but the labor statistics aren’t?”
If that is "just asking questions" then everyone apparently gets to make up their own meanings for words!

Right: "Hmmmm those numbers look bad for Romney....better cry conspiracy"
Public: "You sure about this conspiracy?"
Right: "Hey, we are accusing anyone of anything, we're just asking questions....but those lying bastards cooked the numbers!"

[twa]

Again, at least if your yardstick is "total number of jobs in the US", Obama recovered from his recession faster than W did.

.

If you are bored you can do a costs per job analysis

we will wait

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_1ZT1hwpng&feature=player_embedded

[aREDSKIN]

If accurate LOL-

The number of employed Americans comes from a government survey of 60,000 households that determines the unemployment rate. The government asks a series of questions, by phone or in person. For example:

Do you own a business? Did you work for pay? If not, did you provide unpaid work for a family business or farm? (Those who did are considered employed.)


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobless-rate-falls-7-123110416.html

Really, Unpaid work is "employed?? Makes sense now. :rolleyes:

[RedskinsFan44]

If you are bored you can do a costs per job analysis

we will wait
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_1ZT1hwpng&feature=player_embedded

Hard to do when Bush had so many things "off budget". Where is W, anyhow?

[Larry]

did they really miss counting nearly 100K govt jobs in July and August while proclaiming how govt workers were being cut????

Did twa just invent another claim (that the 100K difference was composed entirely of government jobs), and then try to claim that the evil Obama administration intentionally made the economy (the same economy that the Republicans have been beating them over the head with for four years) look intentional worse, as part of some evil plot?

Why yes, he did.

[twa]

Hard to do when Bush had so many things "off budget". Where is W, anyhow?

not hard at all, govt spending and debt is listed even w/o a budget....a strange complaint since budgets don't seem to be a priority with this administration.

[AsburySkinsFan]

If you are bored you can do a costs per job analysis

we will wait
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_1ZT1hwpng&feature=player_embedded

Need some help changing the topic?

[AsburySkinsFan]

If accurate LOL-

The number of employed Americans comes from a government survey of 60,000 households that determines the unemployment rate. The government asks a series of questions, by phone or in person. For example:

Do you own a business? Did you work for pay? If not, did you provide unpaid work for a family business or farm? (Those who did are considered employed.)


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobless-rate-falls-7-123110416.html

Really, Unpaid work is "employed?? Makes sense now. :rolleyes:
So families who own farms which are their income should be considered unemployed? For crying out loud do just choose to not think before you hit "post quick reply".

I'm done, this thread went from good news to typical Rightwing nut talk to absurd non-thinking blathering tinfoil hatland.

[twa]

Need some help changing the topic?

It seems on topic to me

But if you would prefer to discuss why the govt overlooked so many govt job hires I am certainly open.

or why a historic spike exists in the survey,despite the GDP being anaemic

is it a problem with methodology or the people involved?

[deejaydana]

Unemployment is under 8% in the same sense and degree that David Brooks of the NYTimes is a "conservative." LOL

[Larry]

Do what you want but many just don't fall into the chug a lug lemming crowd as many here do.

^^^^ From a guy who, two hours ago, went to NewsBusters, found a commentary piece where the commentator didn't even have the guts to claim fraud, but who chose only to hint at it, then extrapolated the NewsBuster's hint, so he could announce something that even the commentators on NewsBusters won't say, out loud.

[Burgold]

Unemployment is under 8% in the same sense and degree that David Brooks of the NYTimes is a "conservative." LOL

That actually may be a much more meaningful statement than you think. Either that, or the Conservative Tent has become a pup tent or smaller in recent years :silly:

[Larry]

If accurate LOL-

The number of employed Americans comes from a government survey of 60,000 households that determines the unemployment rate. The government asks a series of questions, by phone or in person. For example:

Do you own a business? Did you work for pay? If not, did you provide unpaid work for a family business or farm? (Those who did are considered employed.)


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobless-rate-falls-7-123110416.html

Really, Unpaid work is "employed?? Makes sense now. :rolleyes:

Waiting for you to point out which of those things are in any way different from the way we've been doing things, for decades.

[Prosperity]

Unemployment is under 8% in the same sense and degree that David Brooks of the NYTimes is a "conservative." LOL

Did you really laugh out loud when you thought of that?

[skinsfan_1215]

I don't think I've ever seen so much outrage and controversy related to good economic news before. You wingnuts should be proud of yourselves.

[deejaydana]

That actually may be a much more meaningful statement than you think. Either that, or the Conservative Tent has become a pup tent or smaller in recent years :silly:

Hey Burgold, the GOP is just getting more "selective" in recent years. I think the methodology of calculating the unemployment #'s has been gamed for quite some time. Part time = Full Time. Underemployed can't be factored in. Those who've quit searching are excluded altogether. The Obama camp wants to divert attention from the stinker debate.

[Larry]

Unemployment is under 8% in the same sense and degree that David Brooks of the NYTimes is a "conservative." LOL

Waiting for you to point out in what way the method for calculating the unemployment number is in any way different from the way we've been doing things, for decades.

[deejaydana]

Did you really laugh out loud when you thought of that?

Well, I laugh at the Obama Administration and Obama specifically. A lot. There's always great comedic material he's offering up.

[Burgold]

Hey Burgold, the GOP is just getting more "selective" in recent years.

Interesting and dangerous strategy in a nation where the majority decides elections. I guess that's why the GOP is working so hard to make sure that the right to vote is infringed on. Look at how many efforts the GOP is undergoing right now not to "rock the vote" but supress the vote.

[Burgold]

I don't think I've ever seen so much outrage and controversy related to good economic news before. You wingnuts should be proud of yourselves.

In a real way, I agree with this statement. I really dislike people rooting against the U.S. and that's what this feels like. To be fair, some lousy Dems seemed to do this when the Surge first started and I thought that was rotten too.

Why should it be so important and be so earnest in your wish to see American failure that you can't celebrate some good news? I have my suspiscions about the numbers too, but I suspect the flaws in the numbers are the same flaws that were around a month ago, six months ago or six years ago and therefore, this does represent a good positive change.

[Larry]

I don't think I've ever seen so much outrage and controversy related to good economic news before. You wingnuts should be proud of yourselves.

It's become a conditioned reflex.

When confronted by things you don't want to hear (like, say, the economy getting better), immediately try to find an excuse to ignore it.

Even when, as people pointed out, it isn't necessary. The GOP reaction should have been "Not good enough!" (Or, more subtly, "Well, if the American People think things are Good Enough, then I guess they'll vote Democrat".)

----------

Also observing that ES appears to be back in the Twilight Zone, with the clocks being off in some of the servers.

We're having posts show up out of sequence, again.

[twa]

it is good news that full time hires are down and 600K supposedly found part time work?

Oh, you mean the 7.8 talking point is good news ....and it is unpatriotic not to celebrate a empty number

[Prosperity]

Well, I laugh at the Obama Administration and Obama specifically. A lot. There's always great comedic material he's offering up.

Nah I think incoherent rage is probably more accurate

[Burgold]

it is good news that full time hires are down and 600K supposedly found part time work?

Oh, you mean the 7.8 talking point is good news ....and it is unpatriotic not to celebrate a empty number

It is good to celebrate the cup being half full... and that August's numbers were better than we thought. Is it good enough to be satisfied... Hell no. But it's better than most thought, projected, or feared.

[Larry]

it is good news that full time hires are down

Got any support for that claim?

[twa]

Got any support for that claim?

look at the revised numbers for the last two months....need more?

july- 181,000
august-142,000

of course there is always hope for a revision to septembers numbers of 114,000

[Larry]

look at the revised numbers for the last two months....need more?

july- 181,000
august-142,000

of course there is always hope for a revision to septembers numbers of 114,000

1) I don't see a link in there.

2) Ah, so your definition of "down" is "not getting better as quickly as they got better in this one month, here"? I'm assuming (since you didn't say), that the numbers you're showing here are the number of new jobs gained?

3) And, if we do take those numbers, and that definition of "down", does that mean that the numbers are lower than they have been, in general? Or does it mean "twa picked the best number we've seen, recently, and then complained that the next two numbers didn't set even bigger records"?

[twa]

1) I don't see a link in there.

2) Ah, so your definition of "down" is "not getting better as quickly as they got better in this one month, here"? I'm assuming (since you didn't say), that the numbers you're showing here are the number of new jobs gained?

it is the full time jobs numbers from the OP, you need a link?

the number is trending down and is not much higher than last septembers of 103,000, with the private sector hiring actually doing worse than last year at this time
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/07/news/economy/jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm

[Larry]

Ah, got it.

So now, the complaint is that the private sector isn't getting better as quickly as it was, when it was getting better at it's highest rate.

"Look! If I look enough, I can find one of Obama's months, where things got better even faster than they're getting better, this month!"

----------

But I seem to remember some analysis I did about the private sector job numbers, a while back, that I seem to remember you running away from. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit:

Ah, here it is.

The important part. (The actual post explains where the data came from).


In Feb, 2001 (The month W took office), private sector employment was 111,623,000
In Feb, 2009 (The month W left office), private sector employment was 110,260,000

(Net change: A loss of 1,363,000 jobs)

In Feb, 2009 (The month O took office), private sector employment was 110,260,000
In May, 2012 (The most recent month for which we have actual data, rather than projections), private sector employment was 111,072,000

(Net change: A gain of 812,000 jobs.)


I will observe that, if you assume that the "Presidential grace period", the time between when a President takes office, and when the economy officially becomes "his", as opposed to his predecessor, is six months, then the "score" becomes:

W: loss of 3,131,000 jobs
O: gain of 3,654,000 jobs

In short, the only way to even imply that Obama hasn't been massively better (on the scale of "total number of private-sector jobs) than W, is to pretend that, when Obama took office, he retroactively become responsible for all of the jobs lost during his predecessor's watch.

So, please. Tell me that the proper way to judge a President's managing of the economy, is the number of private sector jobs created.

[zoony]

twa my offer still stands.

[twa]

Ah, got it.

So now, the complaint is that the private sector isn't getting better as quickly as it was, when it was getting better at it's highest rate.
.

it isn't getting better from the last two months...or from a high point

but run fetch your analysis , seeing people play with numbers is almost as fun as you ignoring the trend of the last 3 months:)

[Larry]

but run fetch your analysis , seeing people play with numbers is almost as fun as you ignoring the trend of the last 3 months:)

"The trend of the last 3 months" is "it's getting better".

"The trend of the last year" is "it's getting better".

(The trend of twa's posts is "Look! I found something to complain about! It's not getting better as quickly as it got better, this one time, here! See, that means it's down!")

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Watch the video. It explains why the numbers can't be manipulated by the WH.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/49309075#49309075

[Larry]

it isn't getting better from the last two months

Yes it is.

You still trying to point at private sector employment? Or have you run to some other yardstick?

Are there more private sector jobs, than there were two months ago? (Hint: The answer is "yes".)

Then it got better than two months ago. (Hint: More jobs is better.)

What you're trying to label as "down" is "the rate at which it's getting better isn't as fast as the rate at which it got better, this other time".

[twa]

"The trend of the last 3 months" is "it's getting better".



you get that from the full time hire numbers? (you know,what you wanted clarified;))

interesting math that counts 114 better than 181 and 142

[Larry]

you get that from the full time hire numbers? (you know,what you wanted clarified;))

interesting math that counts 114 better than 181 and 142

Interesting math that claims that "employment went up by 114" is "it got worse"

[twa]

What you're trying to label as "down" is "the rate at which it's getting better isn't as fast as the rate at which it got better, this other time".

I thought that obvious, but your rate ignores the need to create is not in a vacuum
job creation below 150K is negative due to the pop increase

the rate we are falling behind is worse over the last two months....gaining less is still falling behind because the goalposts move in this game.


it ain't checkers

[Burgold]

you get that from the full time hire numbers? (you know,what you wanted clarified;))

interesting math that counts 114 better than 181 and 142

Maybe I'm lost, (that's always possible) but wouldn't adding jobs always be improving? If added 181,000, 142,000, and now 114,000 doesn't each month represent an improvement. Now, I know there's net jobs relative to those coming into the work force and I acknowledge that quality of job matters... if you're trading a corner office for flipping burgers at McDonalds that's not exactly a 1:1 swap, but gaining is gaining right? Esp. if we use the same tool and calculus to measure it.

I'd hate to see what you'd say if the job numbers were actually negative. Remember back then, four years ago where it was routine to get a jobs report with a "-" sign in front of it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Watch the video. It explains why the numbers can't be manipulated by the WH.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/49309075#49309075

Queue the logical fallacy of source......If this video came from any other source other than MSNBC it would be taken seriously, but the Right hacks will dismiss it off hand.

[twa]

Maybe I'm lost, (that's always possible) but wouldn't adding jobs always be improving?

it is not static, you can certainly call losing ground gaining though

but it is like trying to walk on a tread mill going 15 mph....you will end up on the floor despite the fact you moved forward

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Que the logical fallacy of source......

I'm expecting it.....

[No Excuses]

The amount of desperation in this thread is pathetic and simultaneously hilarious. :ols:

If anyone was unclear if Republicans were actively rooting against Americans, forward them this thread.

[Larry]

Maybe I'm lost, (that's always possible) but wouldn't adding jobs always be improving? If added 181,000, 142,000, and now 114,000 doesn't each month represent an improvement. Now, I know there's net jobs relative to those coming into the work force and I acknowledge that quality of job matters... if you're trading a corner office for flipping burgers at McDonalds that's not exactly a 1:1 swap, but gaining is gaining right? Esp. if we use the same tool and calculus to measure it.

I'd hate to see what you'd say if the job numbers were actually negative. Remember back then, four years ago where it was routine to get a jobs report with a "-" sign in front of it.

Nope, you've got it.

twa is trying to make adding 141,000 more jobs sound bad, by pointing out that the rate at which we're adding jobs isn't as good as this other month, where we added jobs even faster.

He's trying to say that "Alfred Morris just scored a touchdown. But in week 1, he scored two touchdowns. Therefore Morris' touchdown means the Redskins are losing"

[Burgold]

it is not static, you can certainly call losing ground gaining though

but it is like trying to walk on a tread mill going 15 mph....you will end up on the floor despite the fact you moved forward

I do think there's fairness in that object and I dimly remember hearing something about the market needing to generate 200,000 jobs for a net positive. That's one of the reasons I'm suspiscious of these numbers myself. Still, the gross number that they've given us seems like something to feel hopeful about unless there's fraud going on... and though I've heard accusations of that, I've seen not only no proof, but no one willing to claim that they have facts that would lead to proof.

[Larry]

it is not static, you can certainly call losing ground gaining though

Course, nobody's doing that. But yep, it is possible.

It's also possible to call adding 114,000 full-time jobs "worse", "down", or "losing ground"

It's not true. It's not honest. But it's certainly possible.

[Larry]

are we going from the last two months or from 0?

Are there more full-time jobs than there were two months ago?

[twa]

Course, nobody's doing that. But yep, it is possible.

It's also possible to call adding 114,000 full-time jobs "worse", "down", or "losing ground"

It's not true. It's not honest. But it's certainly possible.

are we going from the last two months or from 0?....or from the point we need to reach to break even with pop factor?

it is certainly better than ZERO , but starting there ignores both what I said and the reality of pop increases.

[Larry]

are we going from the last two months or from 0?

Are there more full-time jobs than there were two months ago?

[twa]

Are there more full-time jobs than there were two months ago?

.have we accumulated more total over that span?...Yes

There were less added than in each of the two previous months though....and the unemployment rate dropped....amazing

[AsburySkinsFan]

For crying out loud twa are you still prattling on? The numbers aren't cooked, and if you bothered to inform yourself as to how hard it would be to bring about and conceal such a conspiracy you'd have gone silent long ago.

[Burgold]

.have we accumulated more total over that span?...Yes

There were less added than in each of the two previous months though....and the unemployment rate dropped....amazing

Well, that last doesn't have to be surprising.

The more you add the fewer people unemployed. So, if the economy added a net increase of 114,000 on top of last months gain and the gain the month before that... logic would dictate the number of people unemployed should be dropping.

[HeluCopter29]

I have no problem with you raising their taxes.....just don't whine when it doesn't work like you plan :ols:

Typical entitled mentality

maybe they over sampled the DC area?:evilg:

Take me down to the parasite city
http://washingtonexaminer.com/take-me-down-to-the-parasite-city/article/2504159?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UG-3R1Ykmh9
:ols:

Back up. Let's examine what you responded with vs. what I had said.


An excellent case for higher taxes on the top and a larger public sector. Thanks twa.

Yeah, they can afford investing money and making more jobs but they don't need either of those things so they're not going to do it.

So let's just give them more money to do nothing with.

You started off real strong with this:

"I have no problem with you raising their taxes.....just don't whine when it doesn't work like you plan :ols:"

Although you didn't really offer any substance as to why I'm wrong. You just kinda said "you're wrong."

Then you said this:


Typical entitled mentality

I come from a pretty wealthy family. Not 1% rich. Not even 5% rich. But pretty wealthy. I find myself given tons of things that I'm in no way more entitled to then anyone else. I.E. fully paid for college, very good public worker, and opportunities to better my resume via internships and other work experience. I don't think I'm more deserving then anyone else. I don't think I'm entitled to anything, because I already have it. And anyone who's richer then my family who says that to pay more taxes they'll have to lay off more workers or that they won't be able to invest and create if the top tax rate is to high is bull****ting you. Especially considering the dropoff in wealth that comes right before me.

Then you said this:


maybe they over sampled the DC area?:evilg:

Take me down to the parasite city
http://washingtonexaminer.com/take-m...r#.UG-3R1Ykmh9 :ols:


And it was completely off topic and had nothing to do with anything.

Analysis? You've got no argument and are desperate to make yourself sound right.

[NLC1054]

For crying out loud twa are you still prattling on? The numbers aren't cooked, and if you bothered to inform yourself as to how hard it would be to bring about and conceal such a conspiracy you'd have gone silent long ago.

Because people keep indulging him.

Sometimes the best way to silence those who insist on ignoring reality is by letting them live in their crazy reality, and instead focus on improving actual reality.

[twa]

Well, that last doesn't have to be surprising.

The more you add the fewer people unemployed. So, if the economy added a net increase of 114,000 on top of last months gain and the gain the month before that... logic would dictate the number of people unemployed should be dropping.

You assume no jobs lost in that span....we have added jobs all year yet the labor participation rate is down .5 from last Sept.(the number of people we count dropped)


ASF, I've never said the numbers were cooked...they are odd and do not show what some seem to believe though


Helucopter...I was bored and rambling....but it's always good to be analyzed :)

[Larry]

You assume no jobs lost in that span

Ah, out comes the next completely untrue claim.

No, if the number of jobs goes up by 114K, that does not "assume no jobs lost in that span". What it flat-out states, was that during that span, there was a job created for every job lost, and 141K more.




....we have added jobs all year yet the labor participation rate is down .5 from last Sept.

W have added more apples but the price of oranges went down.


ASF, I've never said the numbers were cooked...they are odd and do not show what some seem to believe though

By "some people" you mean "you and the spinmeisters you follow"?

[twa]

Ah, out comes the next completely untrue claim.

No, if the number of jobs goes up by 114K, that does not "assume no jobs lost in that span". What it flat-out states, was that during that span, there was a job created for every job lost, and 141K more.



Interesting...you are saying participation rate changes do not affect the jobs totals?

coulda swore that 114K was reported hires......sure you ain't conflating hires with job totals there?

[GSF]

twa putting in hard work lol...

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 07:47 PM ----------

Why exactly are the numbers so odd twa?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/05/september-jobs-report-debunking-the-jobs-report-conspiracy-theories/

September jobs report: Debunking the jobs report conspiracy theories
Posted by Ezra Klein on October 5, 2012 at 10:16 am



We’ve hit that moment in the election when people begin to lose their minds. Case in point, within minutes of the jobs report, Twitter filled with Republicans claiming the books were somehow cooked, the numbers aren’t real, etc.

Let’s take a deep breath. Jobs reports are about the economy, not about the election. Confusing the two leads to very bad analysis.

This is a good jobs report in a still-weak economy. The 114,000 jobs we added in September aren’t very impressive. The revisions to the last two months, which added 86,000 jobs to the total, were much more impressive. Those revisions also suggest that September’s jobs could get revised up — or, of course, down. So be careful about reading too much into that number. Still, these are, at best, good, not great, numbers.

The controversy, if it’s worth using that word, is over the unemployment rate, which dropped from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. That’s three-tenths of one percent. That’s what all the fuss is about.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: The data was not, as Jack Welch suggested in a now-infamous tweet, manipulated. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is set up to ensure the White House has no ability to influence it. As labor economist Betsey Stevenson wrote, “anyone who thinks that political folks can manipulate the unemployment data are completely ignorant of how the BLS works and how the data are compiled.” Plus, if the White House somehow was manipulating the data, don’t you think they would have made the payroll number look a bit better than 114,000? No one would have batted an eye at 160,000.

The fact is that there’s not much that needs to be explained here. We’ve seen drops like this — and even drops bigger than this — before. Between July and August the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent — two-tenths of one percent. November-December of 2011 also saw a .2 percent drop. November-December of 2010 saw a .4 percent drop. This isn’t some incredible aberration. The fact that the unemployment rate broke under the psychologically important 8 percent line is making this number feel bigger to people than it really is.

The number could, of course, be wrong. The household survey is, well, a survey, which means it’s open to error. But the internals back it up. The number saying they had jobs increased by about 800,000. That seems high, but it’s counting 582,000 who say they got part-time jobs.

There’s precedent for this. As Daniel Indiviglio notes, part-time jobs increased by 579,000 in September 2010 and by 483,000 in September 2011. It might simply be seasonal hiring. You don’t need to resort to ridiculous theories like Democrats across the country suddenly deciding to lie to surveytakers in order to help Obama.

Which leads to another argument: That U6, the broadest measure of labor-market pain, didn’t move, which should make us skeptical of the fact that U3, the normal unemployment rate, did move. That’s just misunderstanding what U6 is.



U6 is not an unemployment measure. It includes part-time workers who want full-time work. So it doesn’t count the increase in part-time work. But every measure of actual unemployment — U1, U2, U3, U4, and U5 — went down. You can see them all here. Again, there’s no mystery.

This is an encouraging report. What it tells us is that the labor market has been a bit better over the last few months than we thought, and that the recovery hasn’t slowed in the ways we feared. What the response to it tells us is that the election is driving people a little bit crazy.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Down by every conceivable measure....can the Right finally stuff a fat sock in it!?
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8035/8060433751_29ddb73238.jpg

[Buford]

Because people keep indulging him.

Sometimes the best way to silence those who insist on ignoring reality is by letting them live in their crazy reality, and instead focus on improving actual reality.

Ding ding ding. Want to debate things? Cool. Want to get sucked into nonsense with folks who can't acknowledge basic truths? No thanks.

[Elessar78]

Next month, when the jobs number comes out and unemployment has gone back up over 8% can we, rational folk, go on a conspiracy theorist rant about how business has conspired to sink Obama by stalling hiring and laying people off.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Next month, when the jobs number comes out and unemployment has gone back up over 8% can we, rational folk, go on a conspiracy theorist rant about how business has conspired to sink Obama by stalling hiring and laying people off.

Or that the people who were called were Republicans with jobs who lied and said they were unmployed.

[CrabR]

Officials reject conspiracies on unemployment rate

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ECONOMY_SKEPTICS?SITE=VTBEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


they put party before country

[deejaydana]

Nah I think incoherent rage is probably more accurate

Really? Based upon all that you know about me ?

[Dan T.]

Congressman Alan West is another one spewing the conspiracy bull****.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SVt0UHCmv4


He is either a moron who doesn't know better or a scumbag who does and is slopping the trough of his Tea Party constituency. My guess is the latter.

[mistertim]

Or that the people who were called were Republicans with jobs who lied and said they were unmployed.

Personally I thought that particular conspiracy theory was even funnier than the one about the Obama administration actively cooking the books. So basically, every single Democrat and liberal in the USA all got on a conference call a month or so ago and decided that if they were to receive a call for the BLS survey and they were jobless they would just lie and say they did have a job so that it would help Obama get re-elected.

Actually I have my own take on that one. I don't think all Dems and liberals in the USA got on a conference call (that would just be silly and unrealistic). Instead, I think Obama has had the CIA working on a mind control machine that manipulated the sleeping subconscious. He then tuned it to influence people to lie about their employment status.

[Larry]

Remembering the movie DC Cab. There's a scene where one of the cabbies (Gary Busy) is saying that he thinks that the cops are dipping their bullets in PCP, so that that way, when they shoot somebody, the autopsy will say they were on drugs.

[Buford]

Next month, when the jobs number comes out and unemployment has gone back up over 8% can we, rational folk, go on a conspiracy theorist rant about how business has conspired to sink Obama by stalling hiring and laying people off.

I think if you hope and pray every night for unemployment to go up..... maybe it will.

[Burgold]

Or that the people who were called were Republicans with jobs who lied and said they were unmployed.

Just for the sake of conspirasy.

What's more likely, that tens of thousands of Democrats conspired to like to cook the books enough to cause the needle to drop .3% or that Big Oil, the refiners, and others in this country decided to artificially bid up the price of oil and keep them higher at the pump to try to give the GOP and the wallets a boost.

One would be win-win for the Republicans... and with a little collusion very possible. The other would take a coordinated lie amongst 10's of thousands of people "randomly sampled" who decided that lying would benefit their party.

Personally, I think neither is likely, but I don't put it beyond the Oil Barons to try to figure out some way to stick to the guy trying to champion alternative energy and not them.

[Elessar78]

Personally I thought that particular conspiracy theory was even funnier than the one about the Obama administration actively cooking the books. So basically, every single Democrat and liberal in the USA all got on a conference call a month or so ago and decided that if they were to receive a call for the BLS survey and they were jobless they would just lie and say they did have a job so that it would help Obama get re-elected.

Actually I have my own take on that one. I don't think all Dems and liberals in the USA got on a conference call (that would just be silly and unrealistic). Instead, I think Obama has had the CIA working on a mind control machine that manipulated the sleeping subconscious. He then tuned it to influence people to lie about their employment status.

chaos on bull**** mountain

[Burgold]

Turns out that the GOP invested so much energy in the number 8 that you are seeing the fruits of it now. They've been pounding 8 as being the threshold that proves Obama's failure. 8 was the number that showed the economy was horrible. 8,8,8 they repeated like Jan Brady.

Little did they think that it would fall below 8 and because it did... it's thrown them into a panic. The strange thing is, it wouldn't be a hard case to make that 7.8 is pretty bad, but they drew a line in the sand and we just crossed it.

[twa]

funny thing about sand drawings, they tend to change :)

[NLC1054]

Turns out that the GOP invested so much energy in the number 8 that you are seeing the fruits of it now. They've been pounding 8 as being the threshold that proves Obama's failure. 8 was the number that showed the economy was horrible. 8,8,8 they repeated like Jan Brady.

Little did they think that it would fall below 8 and because it did... it's thrown them into a panic. The strange thing is, it wouldn't be a hard case to make that 7.8 is pretty bad, but they drew a line in the sand and we just crossed it.

The Republicans have this stubborn, never ending insistence that acknowledging Obama did anything right is some sort of failure on their part. It's what happens when you spend four years calling the guy an abject failure; when he succeeds, you can either acknowledge the success but point out the flaws in that success, or you can stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

I mean...here's a line that you could easily say, and you don't even have to acknowledge Obama is part of the cause.

"Today we got some positive news for America. Today unemployment has dropped below 7.8% for the first time since 2009. This is great news for millions of Americans. Unfortunately, that are tens of millions still unemployed or underemployed. You were promised a recovery, and there has been some small recovery. But this recovery is too slow. Instead of finding good jobs that pay a living wage, many are finding part-time employment and living paycheck to paycheck. And perhaps more sadly, man Americans are simply choosing to stop looking for work altogether. This was not the change you were promised."

BOOM. Easy, sensible, appealing across a broad demographic and every political party.

Instead, like always, they chose the nuclear option.

[RedskinsFan44]

Congressman Alan West is another one spewing the conspiracy bull****.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SVt0UHCmv4


He is either a moron who doesn't know better or a scumbag who does and is slopping the trough of his Tea Party constituency. My guess is the latter.

Definitely the latter. The guy is sure to end up with a radio gig or on Fox after he loses his congressional seat.

[GSF]

funny thing about sand drawings, they tend to change :)

Are you referring to Romney's policy etch-a-sketch?

[twa]

Are you referring to Romney's policy etch-a-sketch?

it certainly applies, though I thought ya'll valued flexibility ? :)

the progressives used to pine for him to win the nomination....things change :evilg:

[Prosperity]

it certainly applies, though I thought ya'll valued flexibility ? :)

the progressives used to pine for him to win the nomination....things change :evilg:

and you used to dread it

birds of a feather or something like that

[aREDSKIN]

another view-


There’s been a lot of talk about a conspiracy on the part of the administration to release unexpected, unrealistically high numbers in order to swing the election. The idea was mooted by former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, who Tweeted, “Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can’t debate so change numbers.” The accusation is far from original. Democrats accused George W Bush of misrepresenting the labour market all the time – so it’s safe to say that everyone always cries shenanigans whenever their opponent achieves something good for the economy. It’s part of the ugly joy of partisan politics.

But conspiracy theories aside, there are two problems with the administration’s report. First, there’s the question of what figure to use to calculate employment levels because there are two data sets available. One is the establishment survey, which is based on payrolls and puts the jobs gained at 114,000 – an unusually low number for this time of year. The second is the household survey, which is based on what people say they are doing at the moment. The household survey puts the jobs gained at 873,000 – an unusually high number for this time of year. In fact, the household figure is so high that it’s likely that it’s a statistical fluke. The problem is that the media is reporting the generous household figure rather than unkind establishment figure, and few outlets are willing to discuss the discrepancy between the two.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100184070/obamas-jobs-report-isnt-a-conspiracy-but-the-figures-are-debatable-and-the-recovery-is-dubious/

[Larry]

Anxiously awaiting support for the claim that the unemployment number hasn't always been calculated based on the household survey.

[Burgold]

Anxiously awaiting support for the claim that the unemployment number hasn't always been calculated based on the household survey.

It's the same as the poll logic. If the polls are against us and show our candidate lagging, clearly they are unscientific, biased, and poorly designed. If that same poll shows improvement for our candidate, it's a clear demonstration of trendlines and what people are thinking.

What's amazing is that they're not even embarrassed by such a crass pivot.

Here, there is somewhat less hypocrisy as the GOP has been saying for years that the numbers are an underrepresentation of the true unemployment picture. In fact, they've been saying the government has been cooking the books since the day after Obama was elected. Mind you, the day before the President was elected that same formula was pretty much unquestioned.

[twa]

It's the same as the poll logic. .

amazing how that works ain't it :ols:
I prefer to look at the underlying numbers myself, but the big picture seems to get more play.

a amusing look at past logic and reporting on job numbers
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/06/pre-election-bls-reports-then-and-now/

[AsburySkinsFan]

Anxiously awaiting support for the claim that the unemployment number hasn't always been calculated based on the household survey.

Well surely this is all part of some giant cover up. I think it is hilarious that now that the economy is finally back to where Obama picked it up at (after it was broken) that now the Right wants to change the rules about how things are measured. Talk about moving the goal posts.

[Larry]

Well surely this is all part of some giant cover up. I think it is hilarious that now that the economy is finally back to where Obama picked it up at (after it was broken) that now the Right wants to change the rules about how things are measured. Talk about moving the goal posts.

Now, now.

As Burgold has correctly pointed out, the Republicans have been pushing the idea that we need a special way of calculating the unemployment numbers (one which just happens to make things worse) since Obama got elected.

[aREDSKIN]

. I think it is hilarious that now that the economy is finally back to where Obama picked it up at (after it was broken) that now the Right wants to change the rules about how things are measured. Talk about moving the goal posts.


If you're trying to suggest some grand accomplishment by this admin on the economy then you're just delusional. Yes, any admin had a herculean task to try and right the economy given what was handed to them in 08 but this admin has done poorly IMO. That's not to say any other admin could have done better. We will never know. The task at hand in 08 on the economy was clearly known.

[AsburySkinsFan]

If you're trying to suggest some grand accomplishment by this admin on the economy then you're just delusional. Yes, any admin had a herculean task to try and right the economy given what was handed to them in 08 but this admin has done poorly IMO. That's not to say any other admin could have done better. We will never know. The task at hand in 08 on the economy was clearly known.

So basically you're really mad at Obama because he sucks but you don't know if anyone else could have done any better. That's what we call being a partisan hack. BTW, saying that the economy was clearly know in 08 is dellusional, but thanks for showing us what the latest revisionist history looks like.

[zoony]

We're gonna need to revise the unemployment numbers come Monday morning. I know a kicker in DC that's gonna be looking for a job

[AsburySkinsFan]

Now, now.

As Burgold has correctly pointed out, the Republicans have been pushing the idea that we need a special way of calculating the unemployment numbers (one which just happens to make things appear worse) since Obama got elected.
Fixed it, the worst part is that they never want to retroactively apply those same calculations to Republican administrations. This isn't even moving the goal posts, this is chosing to play a different game when the other team gets the ball.

Interestingly enough is that the Right wants to use U-6 numbers for the Kenyan Muslim sleeper terrorist communist socialist, but then want to use the U-3 numbers for any time prior. And then they think you're stupid for calling them out on it. :doh:

[twa]

A interesting look at the jobs picture
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/05/jobs-numbers-quantity-quality

It's heartening to see Friday's news that the unemployment rate edged down to 7.8% last month. But let's not get too caught up in celebrations. We need to look beyond the sheer quantity of jobs being created and into the quality of those jobs – something neither presidential candidate seems very interested in talking about.

Buried in the Friday's jobs report is evidence that a disturbing trend continues: the creation of more part-time jobs, many of them low-wage, taking the place of solid middle-class careers. Positions in sectors like manufacturing continued to decline last month, replaced by new jobs in the healthcare, warehousing and retail industries. A lot of these jobs don't allow workers to rack up enough hours to earn healthcare benefits – let alone break out of poverty.

The key data in the new report can be found in a table called "A-8". It shows that more workers are in stuck in part-time jobs because their hours were cut back or they're unable to find full-time positions. The number of workers in this category shot up to 8.5 million in September – an increase of 581,000 from last month. This month's figure is nearly double what it was in September 2007, the eve of the recession.

It's distressing to think that after 20th-century labor struggles won the battle for the 40-hour work week, the 21st-century struggle is a fight for enough working hours to make a living wage. That's not what I'd call progress.

Here's another sobering number: since September 2007, the number of Americans working full-time has declined by about 5.9 million, while the number working part-time jobs has increased by 2.6 million. (The blog Zero Hedge drew up this powerful graph in June to illustrate the trend.) During the recovery, job gains have been concentrated in lower-wage occupations, which grew nearly three times as fast as mid-wage and higher-wage occupations, according to a recent study by the National Employment Law Project.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I sure wish we had some job creators out there.

[twa]

I sure wish we had some job creators out there.

Something holding you back?

just look at the labor pool at your disposal , and money is cheap to borrow

I wish I had a million bucks.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Something holding you back?
just look at the labor pool at your disposal , and money is cheap to borrow
I wish I had a million bucks.
Yet you complain that the jobs are part time, when our gracious and benevolent job creators are avoiding paying out full time benefits by hiring mostly part timers. Seriously, I'd be amazed if anything made you guys on the Right happy. The "job creators" got their tax cuts, they dodn't produce the jobs promised. We get slow growth boosted by part time jobs and you blame Obama.

[aREDSKIN]

We're gonna need to revise the unemployment numbers come Monday morning. I know a kicker in DC that's gonna be looking for a job


If this doesn't happen then it is absolutely obvious that Danny Smith has pictures.

[twa]

The "job creators" got their tax cuts, they dodn't produce the jobs promised. We get slow growth boosted by part time jobs and you blame Obama.

I remember O promising jobs to get the stimulus...who were the 'job creators' that promised jobs for tax cuts? (I'm assuming you don't mean Solyndra and co.:pfft:)

[AsburySkinsFan]

I remember O promising jobs to get the stimulus...
O promised to create and KEEP 4 million jobs.


who were the 'job creators' that promised jobs for tax cuts?
The politicians and their paid pokespersons on Faux who said that the job creators needed the tax cuts so that hey could provide new jobs. They lied...we get it.

[twa]

So O took credit from the job creators? :D

[hunterx]

We're gonna need to revise the unemployment numbers come Monday morning. I know a kicker in DC that's gonna be looking for a job

Yes but we should be hiring one at the same time. The force is balanced.

---------- Post added October-7th-2012 at 09:54 PM ----------

It costs a lot more money for companies to hire full time employees. They're hiring part timers--or contractors--just because no one is convinced the market is out of the weeds. If they hire 500 full timers and provide them benefits, then 2 years from now they have to cut jobs...it will cost them too much to pay for their benefits and severance packages. Part time jobs don't necessarily mean 20 hours a week, it could be 35-40 but without benefits.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So O took credit from the job creators? :D

Only if you blame the job creators for the stimulus spending. :pfft:

---------- Post added October-8th-2012 at 06:45 AM ----------


, then 2 years from now they have to cut jobs...it will cost them too much to pay for their benefits and severance packages.

While I agree with much of what you wrote, I do have to say that the majority of full time jobs never hear the word severance.

[Buford]

FYI - New talking point was rolled out this morning now that its under 8%. Now you need to throw a number out like 23million Americans are out of work BECAUSE of this President. So, update your chant books.

[AsburySkinsFan]

FYI - New talking point was rolled out this morning now that its under 8%. Now you need to throw a number out like 23million Americans are out of work BECAUSE of this President. So, update your chant books.

Saw this last week when my friends started saying when they realized that the conspiracy theory crap was nonsense they said that the unemployment number was really a useless measure. I was just :doh:

[Buford]

Saw this last week when my friends started saying when they realized that the conspiracy theory crap was nonsense they said that the unemployment number was really a useless measure. I was just :doh:

At the gym this morning I noticed Crossroads GPS is still running their ad about being over 8%. I think they are hoping some people don't realize that's not the case and just believe them. It was a well done ad. Some guy in a control room with a screen he made move with hand gestures.

[Redskins Diehard]

We're gonna need to revise the unemployment numbers come Monday morning. I know a kicker in DC that's gonna be looking for a job
He may not need to look for a job. And if he isn't looking for a job then he clearly isn't unemployed whether he is actually working or not.

[Larry]

Problem with the "Quick! We need to find some other yardstick to complain about" maneuver, is that things are getting better by pretty much all of the yardsticks.

I mean, they already successfully tied him to the yardstick which they knew, always, takes the longest to get better.

[twa]

which yardsticks would that be?

GDP
Median income
full time jobs
participation rate(well that did barely tick up from a 30 yr low)

but the govt is hiring obviously....Yippee

[AsburySkinsFan]

which yardsticks would that be?

GDP
Median income
full time jobs
participation rate(well that did barely tick up from a 30 yr low)

but the govt is hiring obviously....Yippee
How about the same yardstick we've used for decades...oh that one is getting better guess not. How convenient as always.

[twa]

How about the same yardstick we've used for decades...oh that one is getting better guess not. How convenient as always.

I'm fine with that, but he said things are getting better by pretty much all of the yardsticks.

Maybe he knows different ones and can inform the Fed QE3 is not needed

[Larry]

which yardsticks would that be?

GDP

Pulling data from here (http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_2005_2012USk_13s1li111lcn_F0t), it's rather hard to tell, because there isn't much data that isn't estimated. (They don't offer an option of a chart showing GDP. But their raw data, further down the page, lists GDP in the data.)

Obama took office halfway through FY 09. GDP: 12.7 $T (I'm using dollars that are inflation-adjusted to 2005 dollars.)
FY 10: GDP 13.1 $t. Growth of 3%
FY 11 (projected): GDP 13.3 $T. one-year growth of 1.7%, average annual growth rate since Obama took office: 2.4%
FY 12 (projected): GDP 13.5 $T. one-year growth of 1.2%, average annual growth rate since Obama took office: 2.0%

I'd be perfectly willing to use numbers that aren't projected, if somebody knows a place that has them.


Median income

I'm trying to find data for that one. Can't seem to. You got some kind of source that shows that data, preferable going back for a decade or so?


full time jobs

I think I can get that data from BLS, but I'm getting "database not available". Maybe later.


participation rate(well that did barely tick up from a 30 yr low)

First, I'll observe the grudging way you admit that the statistic you're reaching for has indeed gone up.

Only place I can find that data is here (http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea03.htm), which only goes back to Sept of '11.

I will now observe, however, that participation rate depends on things other than the economy. When some guy turns 65 and retires, it affects the participation rate. But it does not indicate an economic downturn, nor is it the President's fault.

But, if you've got a source for some historical data for that yardstick, I'll be happy to talk about it.


but the govt is hiring obviously....Yippee

That's a funny sound bite for you to pull out of your Philly.

Looking at the BLS (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?ce), and choosing

Seasonally Adjusted
Government (You'll have to scroll down)
All Employees, Thousands
Government
Retrieve Data

Shows me that, since Obama took office (I'm using Feb of '09, and ignoring the last two months, because they're projections), total government employment has gone down by 631,000 jobs.

(If you go back to the BLS, and do the same data retrieval, but you pick "Total Private", "All Employees", and "Total private", then you'll see that private employment went up by 1,038,000 jobs, over the same period.)

Perhaps all the spinning you do has made you dizzy. You see, If you look at the same data for W's administration, then his administration, over 8 years, added 1,670,000 government jobs, while private jobs went down by 638,000.

(I still wonder if that's some kind of record. For a President to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he took office. Especially after two full terms.)

Or maybe you were thinking back to the days when you were praising Rick Perry for being the master job creator, for the way he increased private jobs by 10%, while increasing government jobs by 18%

----------

But please. Feel free to go out and find some yardstick you can point at, to try to claim that things aren't getting better.

(Please, if you do find one, actually bring the yardstick back, with you, so we can see it.)

[twa]

I suppose I should ask getting better from what before wasting my time? :)

Is the Fed doing QE3 because it is getting better....or is the getting better not good enough since improvement must be at a certain pace to simply maintain

What metrics are we using?....the need for 186K new jobs a month to keep up or the 300K needed to get back to where we were?

[Larry]

I suppose I should ask getting better from what before wasting my time? :)

Does this mean that you're already abandoning the ones you've already tried to use? :halo:

No, you can't blame Obama for things that happened before he took office.


Is the Fed doing QE3 because it is getting better....or is the getting better not good enough since improvement must be at a certain pace to simply maintain

Well, if the simple mathematical definitions of better (1001 is better than 1000, and so forth) aren't good enough, then perhaps you could tell us which alternate definition of getting better people use in whatever land you chose to inhabit. (Of course, if you do that, then you might have to actually defend whatever alternate-reality definition you chose to invent.)



What metrics are we using?....the need for 186K new jobs a month to keep up or the 300K needed to get back to where we were?

You're the one choosing the metrics.

Other people have picked some common ones that have been used as metrics for decades. Like the unemployment rate.

But if you want to demonstrate just how far you're willing to reach, so you can find a cherry that you're willing to pick, then feel free to, in effect, post a video of yourself, reaching for that cherry.

Purely for educational purposes, of course.

Here. I'll hold the ladder.