Unemployment falls below 8

[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://www.calculatedriskblog.com/20...4000-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/2012-1...obs-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/2012-1...obs-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.

[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/2012-1...obs-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/2012-1...obs-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?

[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.