Predicto Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-05/u-s-jobless-rate-unexpectedly-falls-to-7-8-114-000-jobs-added.htmlBiggest 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 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!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 REACTION THE GOP ACTUALLY HAD: "OBUMMER CHICAGO POLITICS! HE FAKED THE NUMBERS AND COOKED THE BOOKS! MEDIA CONSPIRACY!" They went Maddow/Matthews on ya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCClybun Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 No. But then most of your posts don't. (Sorry. Had to.) ..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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupidmorals Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 ...I would like a job, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeluCopter29 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 ..try this thenhttp://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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Threads like this make it real clear who the bad Americans are. GTFO of the country you partisan, anti-american jackasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Obama saving the US Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 ..try this thenhttp://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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 ..try this thenhttp://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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 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. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeluCopter29 Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Here's a funny read. Why weren't these numbers questioned by our noble truth seekers? :ols: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?349094-LATimes-Dismal-jobs-report-shows-unemployment-rising-to-9.2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Here's a funny read. Why weren't these numbers questioned by our noble truth seekers? :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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.