Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-04-2011, 11:03 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,870,208 times
Reputation: 2519

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Well, if it was JUST a .1% decrease for one month you'd be quite right - but you KNOW that's not the case. The EU rate has dropped nearly a full percentage point in the last 3 months - from 9.8 to 9.4 to 9.0. to 8.9. That's a HUGE drop in 3 months. I think it's the fastest decrease over that period of time since 1983 so it's pretty significant.

On top of that the February job creation numbers were the best in several years (leaving aside the temporary jump in job creation that took place last summer during the census).

AND this is ON TOP of all the other encouraging news such as surging factory orders (BIG news on that today), improving retail sales & generally improving consumer sentiment.

ALL in all, things are looking up.

Ken
AGAIN....the BLS revised how it was figuring the data beginning this year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2011, 11:04 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,870,208 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
The unemployment rate went down and is now at 8.9%.
How many new jobs were created in the past three months?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 11:10 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,330,678 times
Reputation: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
AGAIN....the BLS revised how it was figuring the data beginning this year.
YEAH - so?
That might well affect the Jan & Feb numbers somewhat (and NO ONE - including YOU - knows by how much). It certainly doesn't affect the HUGE drop in December.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 11:14 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,330,678 times
Reputation: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
How many new jobs were created in the past three months?
Net: 151,000 in December, 63,000 in January and 192,00 in February - that gives a total of net gain of 406,000 - which is a LOT better than any 3 month period in the last 3 years or so.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 11:14 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
I'm the one accepting the decades old standard for unemployment figures.

For some strange reason, you object to this month's report.

You should alert the media.
You seem to be putting words in my mouth because I never objected the reports.. I simply explained how BOTH "surveys" could be correct
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 11:15 AM
 
13,900 posts, read 9,771,097 times
Reputation: 6856
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
How many new jobs were created in the past three months?
I don't know off the top of my head, but I read today that in February the economy created a net gain of 192,000 jobs and jobless claims are at a 2 1/2 year low.

I see that as moving in the right direction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Staten Island, New York
3,727 posts, read 7,034,543 times
Reputation: 3754
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
AGAIN....the BLS revised how it was figuring the data beginning this year.
Do you have a link? I'd like to read up on that, thanks!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 11:21 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
I DID the math, you don't seem to even understand the CONCEPT - so let me lay it out for you AGAIN.

The claim is that prior to 1994 anyone without a job (including those no longer LOOKING) was grouped into ONE category of unemployed and that when the change went into place suddenly those who were no longer LOOKING were no longer counted. Since there is generally about the same amount of folks no longer LOOKING as there are actively LOOKING then IF it was true that in 1994 the folks no longer LOOKING were suddenly not included in the UE rate then that UE rate would suddenly DROP by a ratio reflecting the number of Actively LOOKING vs No Longer LOOKING (in other words the UE rate would be suddenly cut IN HALF).

There IS no such drop because prior to that change the "No Longer LOOKING" folks were NO COUNTED AT ALL.

Ken
Not true.. if people not looking for work were counted before 1994 as being unemployed, and after the changes they were not counted, then anyone with elementary education could figure out this meant a DECREASE in the numbers being counted.. How big of a decrease is not the question because elementary math shows that there IS a decrease.. To pretend that this would reflect a substantial drop is ridiculous because the majority of americans are working.. The numbers of people not working, and change from looking to not looking each month I would suspect is quite small.. People have bills to pay after all.. And considering at the same time people were making the opposite move, from not looking to looking, due to welfare reforms being made, this would negate any going the opposite direction. Even if your imaginary 1/2 of people claim above would be true, which its not.. You are just making up numbers to make an argument that no economists or anyone else would substantiate..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 11:27 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYChistorygal View Post
Do you have a link? I'd like to read up on that, thanks!
Straight from the BLS
Duration of unemployment in the CPS
Changes to the household survey (CPS) tables in the Employment Situation news release
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 11:28 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
btw, another report from the BLS
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/pdf/opbils87.pdf
Ranks of those unemployed for a year or more up sharply

I wonder how many of those now looking for work because their unemployment is running out..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top