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.
Goes to show the right invests in tin foil. Also makes you wonder why they aren't happy with the results... oh I forgot. they want the country to fail so they can prove Obama was wrong... great logic for some unAmerican d bags!
Reality. The plans Obama has been doing have worked ...without the Repug support. The right has done nothing but sought t the failure of the US and the people in it. The right caused it and they worked to prolong it... Sit back suck an egg as you watch our President get reelected.
Funny how Flip Romney changed his mind on the 47% comment... not surprising, he changes his position on anything he thinks will benefit him.
He was a horrid gov in Mass. and is incapable of being a good president.
btw... he didn't work well with the Dems in Mass. he was always at odds with them, but who cares his lies continue... How can you tell he is lying? he is talking!
Worked??!!???? Where in the world does even a 7.8% unemployment figure become great news??? Oh yeah, 0bama has so dumbed down the nation that 8% was made the new norm, and 7.8% is like, totally AWE-some dude.
Well, 7.8% unemployment is not good. But the numbers just don't add up. We are not even generating enough job each month to keep up with population growth, much less the normal employment fluctuations as people switch jobs, or their employment contracts expire. And then suddenly, out of nowhere, the UE figures drop like a rock, because of a measly 114,00 jobs being created.
Something is not adding up, but these numbers don't surprise me coming out right now.
Everything you stated is true.
So now with all these brand new jobs out there! everyone out of work, ought to be able to run right out there and now find a job right?
And in all fields. See if my friends who are out of work, in their speciality fields, are now going to be able to find a decent paying good job with benefits.
Interesting for real, to see how many unemployed are really going to find a good job.
Sorry but never did trust this administration, and can't expect some people to now trust in them.
There were 873,000 people added to the "employed" category. That includes:
Quote:
Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.
The civilian labor force level is up 418,000
Quote:
Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.
The LFPR is up .1% point.
Quote:
The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
The UE number is down 456,000
Quote:
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
The U-6 percentage is unchanged at 14.7%.
Quote:
Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
Who thinks Barry and company has cooked the books on this.
No president has ever got re-elected with it over 8%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt800
I don't buy it and it seems there are plenty of people who agree with you.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt800
Explain to me how the loss of 110,000 jobs doesn't move the UE one tenth of a percent higher but somehow the gain of only 4,000 more jobs (114,000) causes a .3% decrease?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Well, 7.8% unemployment is not good. But the numbers just don't add up.
You guys should really take some economic classes. It'd be cheaper than buying tin-foil.
Advising...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkGuy
Why can't you guys be happy that America's economy is recovering. What do you have against the USA? Why does it bother you so much?
Your economy isn't recovering, and you don't have the guts to ask the hard questions.
You ignore the fact that you've been deficit spending $1+ TRILLION per year for the last the several years. You ignore the fact that your GDP has been declining for three straight quarters. You ignore the fact that wages and household income have declined.
You have completely forgotten about the 2% FICA tax rebate....and when it ends....and it will have to end....there will be a negative impact. You had people living paycheck-to-paycheck before the 2% rebate, and they stupidly continued to live paycheck-to-paycheck instead of banking that money and saving it, or using it to pay down debt.
So your GDP is smoke and mirrors; an illusion; nothing but false hope, because when the FICA tax rebate ends, and when your government stops spending money, you go right back into recession.
And you ignore the fact that Medicare will collapse in 2018, and that Social Security will collapse in 2023-2024. You ignore the fact that the Medicare Trustees have repeated called for either an increase in the SECA tax rate or a cut in Medicare spending to delay the collapse. You repeatedly ignore the fact that the Social Security Trustees have been calling for a FICA tax increase.
You refuse to acknowledge the reality that the only way to save those programs is an increase in taxes on everyone...rich and poor alike. You ignore the impact of that.
You ignore the impact of a very low labor participation rate for younger people; and you don't understand that their Earnings Curve is permanently and irrevocably screwed and skewed....meaning those people will not have the life-time earnings potential that they would normally have....meaning over the course of their life-time they will earn less....and then meld that reality with the fact that you are already $20.5 TRILLION short on Social Security.
Feel free to pull the LSD IV out of your arm and end the fantasy trip anytime you want...if you dare.
Daring...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkGuy
LMAO, you are entitled to your own conspiracies but not to your own unemployment number. I will go with the figures from the BLS.
Okay, then let's do exactly that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73
Has anyone bothered to find out why U6 numbers are holding steady while this wonky heuristic is now pegged as .3% lower?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Because of more people working part time
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
The 114,000 jobs figure in today's report was from the establishment survey. The household survey indicated that over 800,000 more people were working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Labor force participation has been increasing among those 60 and older and decreasing among those in every age group from 16-59, drastically decreasing among the young actually. It appears that boomers are actually having to delay retirement because of the poor economy. We need at least 150,000 jobs probably - minimum - a month to keep up with population growth. And, in addition to that, 8 million jobs were lost in this downturn and those all need to be made up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that the NFP number is actually not enough to keep up with population growth, let alone cause the UE rate to go down, that the household survey has a lot more statistical noise, that U6 stayed the same, etc.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out that 1.3% GDP growth is not indicative of a growing economy....especially when we're supposed to be in a "recovery."
Hell, I like you.
You can come over and bang my sister.
Since you said most of what I would say, I'm just going to back you up on some facts and elucidate for everyone's benefit.
You said....
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Because of more people working part time
...and let's look at that to help other people understand.
"Employed" means employed and there's no distinction between full-time employment and part-time employment. you have dig that out of the data.
If we look at LNU02500000, we can see this....
Aug 116,214,000
Sep 115,678,000
...ooops, the number of people working Full-Time has decreased.
If we look at LNU02600000, we see that...
Aug 26,344,000
Sep 27,655,000
....the number of people working Part-Time has increased.
That supports your claims, as well as explains some of what people rather stupidly refer to as "monkey business."
Supporting...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999
Just being you don't understand how the numbers are calculated (where every credible economist has said good report) doesn't give you an excuse to say its cooked. I refuse to keep answering these questions as I have randomly through the day as it is tiring, but all of those "questions" have been explained.
It's a bad report, and I'm more credible than any economist, since I've been right 100% of the time and they've been wrong 100% of the time.
You're saying a decrease in the number of full-time workers and an increase in the number of part-time workers is a good thing. It is not.
You're saying that a decrease in the Labor Participation rate from 63.7% to 63.6% (LNU01300000) is a good thing. It is not.
Do you understand why it is not? Because sustainable funding Medicare and Social Security -- and by extension Obamacare and any conceivable universal health plan --- is based on the ratio of employed persons to persons receiving benefits.
In order to maintain Medicare and Social Security benefits, as well as Obamacare, you must have a Labor Participation rate >67.0%.
I know that in the past I've said 66.5%, but that was before I factored in declining wages/salaries, and also the time-scale over which it is necessary to fund Medicare and Social Security before their inevitable collapses in 2018 and 2023-24 respectively.
What is the unemployment rate for the Full-Time Labor Force.....
....LNU04100000 says 8.0%.
The number of people not in the labor force...
Jun 86,770,000
July 86,828,000
Aug 88,311,000
Sep 88,697,000
....keeps increasing, yet the number employed isn't increasing by the same amount, or in other words, every month you have more people leaving the work-force than are entering it.
And 114,000 jobs doesn't even keep pace with population growth, which requires at least 115,000 jobs to employ new and returning entrants to the work-force.
So you can cheer-lead all you want, but it doesn't alter the facts, and your economic problems are far, far, far from being over.
Economically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
The unemployment rate itself is based on a separate "household survey," which showed a whopping 873,000 new jobs in September.
"This must be an anomaly," former Congressional Budget Office director Doug Holtz-Eakin said in a snap analysis of the numbers. "It is out of line with any of the other data."
Holtz-Eakin noted the household survey is smaller, suggesting it is not as reliable. He called estimate of 873,000 new jobs "implausible."
He said the report was otherwise "solid," but reflected "the economy is merely moving sideways."
Liberal economist Dean Baker, with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, called the September rate drop "almost certainly a statistical fluke."
You have to understand that the BLS uses the failed Birth/Death Model.
We go through this stupidity every January where you see this....
2012 January 139944(1)
"1 : Data affected by changes in population controls."
After 18 years of total and complete failure, when do you finally admit that your Birth/Death Model for economics doesn't work?
There's a thread on that. Some of us have known for a very long time that the BLS Birth/Death Model is a failure. In fact, about one year ago (or maybe longer -- see the thread) the BLS admitted publicly that's Birth/Death Model is a failure.
But it continues to use it. I never used it. I was warned about that years ago by my professors when I was an undergrad.
Anyway, this flawed Birth/Death economic data model causes skewed results and that's one of the reasons they are making constant revisions to both the weekly unemployment claims and to the monthly labor statistics.
They can stop using the unreliable Birth/Death Model anytime they want and use older more reliable methods, they just have to want to stop using it.
Statistically...
Mircea
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.
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.
