Unemployment falls below 8

[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-job...123110416.html

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

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

[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-job...123110416.html

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

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

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