November jobs report: much better than expected (program, federal, claims)

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by einsteinsghost

i quoted private sector employment over last five months. You didn't understand that? Let me repeat: 755k private sector jobs in the five months you mentioned off the community's nuts service.

If that makes for only 27% of the total jobs added, then it is logical to assume a total of 2.8 million jobs have been added in just five months (your claim being 73% being government jobs). This is my source.

2012:

July - 142220
August - 142101
September - 142974
October - 143384
November - 143262

That's clearly not 2.8 million jobs and as you can see you lost jobs from July to August.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

Well then you can go to the source. It's right here:

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

It's the fifth choice up from the bottom.

Take note that it only goes back to 1994. That's because the definitions in how UE was measured changed and they didn't do that because Things were going well. In 1995 from April to May the economy lost 700,000 jobs people in the labor force and 500,000+ jobs. That completely throws a wrench into the Clinton years of prosperity.

Shadowstats uses pre-1994 definitions and has tracked those from 1995 forward.
We never dropped below 10% unemployment from 1995 through today.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

[xray731]

Quick question - if you are counted as employed if you work 1 day in a 2 week period - are you also counted in the unemployment numbers if you receive unemployment for the 9 days you didn't work in that 2 week period. If you are - it cancels each other out but if not than the employed number is rather skewed as the average American views an employed person as one who works a 40 hour week.

[Hot_Handz]

Originally Posted by wade52

... hate it when good things happen to America.

Did you hate Bush even though unemployment was much better under him??

I'm not an RWNJ by the way... I am a social moderate and a fiscal conservative.. but not a RWNJ. I simply like pointing out the hypocrisy amongst partisans.

Keep trying to pigeonhole somebody when they blow your argument up though.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by xray731

Quick question - if you are counted as employed if you work 1 day in a 2 week period - are you also counted in the unemployment numbers if you receive unemployment for the 9 days you didn't work in that 2 week period. If you are - it cancels each other out but if not than the employed number is rather skewed as the average American views an employed person as one who works a 40 hour week.

LAST WEEK, did you do ANY work for (either) pay (or profit)?
If the answer to question 1 is "yes" and the answer to question 2 is "no," the next question is:
LAST WEEK, did you do any unpaid work in the family business or farm?
For those who reply "no" to both questions 2 and 3, the next key questions used to determine employment status are:
LAST WEEK, (in addition to the business,) did you have a job, either full or part time? Include any job from which you were temporarily absent.
LAST WEEK, were you on layoff from a job?
What was the main reason you were absent from work LAST WEEK?
For those who respond "yes" to question 5 about being on layoff, the following questions are asked:
Has your employer given you a date to return to work?
and, if "no,"
Have you been given any indication that you will be recalled to work within the next 6 months?
If the responses to either question 7 or 8 indicate that the person expects to be recalled from layoff, he or she is counted as unemployed. For those who were reported as having no job or business from which they were absent or on layoff, the next question is:
Have you been doing anything to find work during the last 4 weeks?
For those who say "yes," the next question is:
What are all of the things you have done to findLAST WEEK, did you do ANY work for (either) pay (or profit)?
If the answer to question 1 is "yes" and the answer to question 2 is "no," the next question is:
LAST WEEK, did you do any unpaid work in the family business or farm?
For those who reply "no" to both questions 2 and 3, the next key questions used to determine employment status are:
LAST WEEK, (in addition to the business,) did you have a job, either full or part time? Include any job from which you were temporarily absent.
LAST WEEK, were you on layoff from a job?
What was the main reason you were absent from work LAST WEEK?
For those who respond "yes" to question 5 about being on layoff, the following questions are asked:
Has your employer given you a date to return to work?
and, if "no,"
Have you been given any indication that you will be recalled to work within the next 6 months?
If the responses to either question 7 or 8 indicate that the person expects to be recalled from layoff, he or she is counted as unemployed. For those who were reported as having no job or business from which they were absent or on layoff, the next question is:
Have you been doing anything to find work during the last 4 weeks?
For those who say "yes," the next question is:
What are all of the things you have done to find work during the last 4 weeks?
If an active method of looking for work, such as those listed at the beginning of this section, is mentioned, the following question is asked:
LAST WEEK, could you have started a job if one had been offered?
If there is no reason, except temporary illness, that the person could not take a job, he or she is considered to be not only looking but also available for work and is counted as unemployed.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by xray731

Quick question - if you are counted as employed if you work 1 day in a 2 week period - are you also counted in the unemployment numbers if you receive unemployment for the 9 days you didn't work in that 2 week period. If you are - it cancels each other out but if not than the employed number is rather skewed as the average American views an employed person as one who works a 40 hour week.

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

From the same link.

[WilliamSmyth]

Originally Posted by Bill Keegan

And they were able to do so because the rules were changed, allowing people to borrow more money with less proof of ability to repay it. Banks were told they MUST make these loans, and then, becasue these banks complained the loans were too risky, these GSEs guaranteed the loans, which made those repackaged loans attractive to investors.
Why were the rules changed? Because some politicians claimed that with the lending guidelines and policies banks were using, they were unfairly preventing some people from buying homes, and that the rules must be changed to fix that problem. Once the rules were changed, everyone was able to take advantage, and many people did, leading to what we now all call the "housing bubble." Yes, the housing bubble was absolutely the result of "greasing the wheels" to allow low income people to buy houses.

The non-GSE investments banks which were the primary players in the sub prime mortgage market were competing against the GSEs. Many of the loans they were dealing with were not guaranteed by the GSEs, which is why there was a huge growth in the Credit Default Swap market. Some, like Merrill Lynch, even went out and bought banks heavily involved in mortgage lending in order to gain access to a steady stream of mortgages. The investments being resold by the non-GSE investment banks were considered more attractive if they were made up of sub prime mortgages because they would generate larger income streams (at least in the short term). Therefore there was a huge demand for sub prime mortgages from the non-GSE investment banks and that is what was driving the lower standards. The mortgage originators were trying to fill the demand from the top.

[Ford Beebe]

Somewhere, Jack Welch is crying in his comically high-pitched voice while banging his high chair with a spoon.

[Ford Beebe]

Originally Posted by Hot_Handz

Did you hate Bush even though unemployment was much better under him??

I'm not an RWNJ by the way... I am a social moderate and a fiscal conservative.. but not a RWNJ. I simply like pointing out the hypocrisy amongst partisans.

Keep trying to pigeonhole somebody when they blow your argument up though.

Comparing the Bush employment rate to the rate under Obama is asinine and simple.

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

Actually workforce participation numbers are NOT declining any more. They are bouncing around a bit but are essentially flat for the year, with the rate last month being just 1/10 of percent less than in January (last month it was 1/10 of percent less than in January). Here's the numbers for the 11 months of this year:

63.7

63.9

63.8

63.6

63.8

63.8

63.7

63.5

63.6

63.8

63.6

Note that over that period of time the UE rate fell from 8.3% to 7.7% - and since the participation rate last month was pretty much the same as it was back in January (a mere 1/10th of a point difference) it's pretty obvious that the drop in the UE rate since the first of the year is NOT simply due to "people giving up and leaving the workforce".

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Ken

Ken ... throw out these numbers .... 8.3 % and 7.7% .... both figures are preposterous nonsense, and therefore, ALL OF THE FIGURES from the BLS can be assumed preposterous nonsense as well, since those are the figures supporting the lie.

Hows that you say? Well Ken, it's pretty simple really ... it's called manipulating the statistics ... fudging the numbers ... cookin' the books .... or as we used to call this in the olden days ... a bunch of freaking liars, lying through their teeth, which I prefer to call it because that is what is happening.

The first step in all of this fancying up the numbers is done by breaking up the workforce into separate categories that really don't mean anything to the maternal fornicator who can't find a job, but really helps the liars lie, and gives the sheep a reason to cheer ... O-baaaaah-maaaaah. Such categories like Headline U3, and Full U6, and Constant Workforce Participation Rates, with the latter being the number we need to look at a little more critically, as the Government has managed to remove 9 Million unemployed people from the books by simply .... well .... removing them from the books. Add those unemployed people back in, and the true unemployment figure hit 19.9 % in January of this year, and is climbing, not falling.

It's common knowledge to those who understand statistics and statistical analysis how easy it is to paint any picture desired by redefining factors and variables. When calculating unemployment rates, a very small change in the total workforce number can have a dramatic effect in the unemployment rate ... so much so that you can have a total net loss of jobs and ALSO show a declining unemployment rate too. Now that truly is the magic of statistical smoke and mirrors ... and nobody does smoke and mirrors better than the Uncle Sam! Hell, he's already convinced half the population that war=peace, Thomas Jefferson was a terrorist, and the United States should welcome communism. So, fudging the unemployment figures is really not such a tall order when viewed with a bit of perspective.

Here's a more detailed explanation of what is being done and how this magic works, including all of the relevant labor statistics:

Making 9 Million Jobless Vanish: How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

What we have happening here is that the country is past the point of recession, and well into a depression. Of course, looking at the 50 Million people on food stamps should have been a gigantic clue, but clues don't tend to make much of an impact on the clueless. But if you lined up those 50 Million people in soup lines like they were during the Great Depression when food stamps didn't exist ... then the real situation would be a little harder to conceal with just cooking the statistics .....

And now you know how the powers that be can take a Great Depression and make it look like an economic recovery. It also helps to have a significant portion of the population in a permanent catatonic state of imbecilic drooling, who will believe any cockamamie story fed them, without so much as a single neuron firing. It's like mass hypnosis ..... the crap is hitting the fan, and you're being told it's raining chocolate. Yum, yum.