Unemployment falls below 8

[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...ment/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...09075#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