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.
Originally Posted by AZDesertBrat
So they don't use the number of people getting unemployment as part of their numbers? If people getting unemployment don't count where do they get their numbers from?
People who file for unemployment..that's where.
No, that's another wrong answer. The unemployment data that BLS announces each month are derived from the monthly Current Population Survey, which contacts about 60,000 households typically during whichever week the 12th of the month falls in. The survey itself is done by the Census Bureau and the results are then compiled, processed, and analyzed at BLS. No information at all from the unemployment insurance system goes into the unemployment data. They are two entirely separate operations.
As the budget cuts of 2010 take place with the elimination of many teacher jobs , how would you count these teacher positions that were "saved" in 2009 due to the stimulus, but lost in 2010. Do they still count in the created or saved category or do they no longer count in that category as they no longer exist? Not trying to be a wise a$$, but I'm curious as to how this will be accounted for officially.
Like many others, the determination requires the comparison of two states, only one of which can actually exist. We have actual data for how many jobs of different sorts exist within the economy today with a stimulus bill having been in place since February 2009. We also need to know how many jobs of different sorts would have existed within the economy today if there had been no stimulus bill at all in effect since February 2009. Those numbers have to be modeled. Fortunately, we have gotten very good at modeling, the basic techniques for it are widely known, and a lot of different people use those techniques to develop their own models. The administration does them, CBO and the Fed do them, and of course the major private sector statistical shops do them as well. You can never "know" that the modeled data are correct, since there will never be any "hard data" to compare them to. You can have considerable confidence in those data, however, to the extent that various different models are all arriving at roughly the same conclusions. That in fact is the case with regard to the jobs created/saved numbers that are published by various sources. None of the models is identical, but with few exaceptions, all fall into the same ballpark. Their results are at least usefully accurate.
Right-wingers are of course always ready to tell you that Obama pledged, promised, and swore on the grave of the mother who gave birth to him in Kenya that the stimulus bill would create or save X number of jobs by such and such a time. Those "promised" values were produced using the same sort of techniques as those that are used now to measure progress toward those earlier estimates. But since the progress numbers don't fit the partisan propagandist's claim of a "failed stimulus", they like to criticize today the very techniques that they put so much faith in earlier. This can all be safely ignored as being merely the desperate flip-flopping of a bunch of people who are being left behind.
Unfortunately your childish spin has little meaning for adults. It is YOUR failing to understand the issue is not about Obama bashing, it is about government interference. It is comical the way you spin things in order to make a point that doesn't exist.
I don't recall anyone saying the jobs were not coming back so it is rather idiotic to spin it that way if you are honest about it. On the contrary people are saying the government policies are interfering with the market corrections that would put us on the right track sooner and without the blowback that comes with government interference.
You speak of honesty yet you don't practice it. If you haven't figured out that the majority of people are against the federal government interference and not just Obama bashers then that is your fault, not others.
That would make sense if these people were outraged under Bush who expanded government and spending in radcial ways. But, instead, they voted for the guy.
In reality, many, many people (just go back on this forum alone) were saying is that jobs wouldn't come back, that any rise was just a brief blip before the double dip collapse, that it would be and is a jobless recovery (just look at roysoldboy's post last night on the old 44% approval rating thread (now 51%) claiming it's still a jobless recovery! So many said that Obama's policies would destroy our country, yet reality is proving them wrong more and more everyday.
The economy is recovering far faster than any economist had predicted in early 2009 when Obama took office, so your statement is absolutely false that he's slowing down the recovery.
I realize you have a partisan agenda, but you should at least try to stick with facts when presenting it. Thank you. From CNN:
More nonsense. The December job figures were out the first Friday of January. More selective memories from the Left.
More shoot-from-the-hip-without-knowing-what-you're-talking-about crap from the right. The first Friday of January 2009 was January 2. The government was closed. The January 2009 Employment Situation release was at 8:30 am on Friday, January 9. Believe it or not, Romer and Bernstein did not have time to redo their projections, rewrite their text, and then get their paper reapproved and reprinted in time for its release at 6:00 am on Saturday, January 10.
As a repeat offender, you are hereby sentenced to an additional 60 days in the doghouse. (I think that puts your release date out to sometime in early 2015.)
There are over 2 million people that will likely be coming back into the job market that had quit looking for jobs - unless job creation can match the influx of those seeking a job, the rate will climb. That is why all the so-called experts have been saying the UE rate will hover around 10% this year.
Okay- thanks.
That is not exactly what I would call "good news" and suggests that the real unemployment rate is much higher than 10%.
When will Barry the job killer wake up and realize that you do not create jobs by raising taxes on buisnesses?
That is not exactly what I would call "good news" and suggests that the real unemployment rate is much higher than 10%.
When will Barry the job killer wake up and realize that you do not create jobs by raising taxes on buisnesses?
The "real" unemployment rate is ALWAYS higher than the U-3 (traditional) unemployment rate - and (as I have posted many, many, many - and many more times) the U-6 unemployment rate (which is as close to the "total" unemployment rate as we are able to calculate) is published EVERY SINGLE MONTH - and has been since the early 1990's.
Obama's "tax increase" on business - puts the tax rate at more or less the same level as Reagan had (AFTER his tax cut) -and business did JUST FINE under Reagan.
That is not exactly what I would call "good news" and suggests that the real unemployment rate is much higher than 10%.
When will Barry the job killer wake up and realize that you do not create jobs by raising taxes on buisnesses?
There is a profound lack of market understanding on this forum.
I'll leave Lordbalfor's answer to address your misguided concern about what the real unemployment rate is (it's always been higher than what is reported in that particular number, and they always release both numbers).
"Barry the job killer" has the most job creation in 4 years. I'm not sure what you're basing your assessment upon. Perhaps propaganda, but you should educate yourself on these issues from a variety of sources in the future to learn the truth. Just look at the chart I posted above. You can call Obama many things, but the economy is creating jobs under him and the unemployment rate will soon start to drop after this short blip up due to people re-entering the job hunt.
There is a profound lack of market understanding on this forum.
I'll leave Lordbalfor's answer to address your misguided concern about what the real unemployment rate is (it's always been higher than what is reported in that particular number, and they always release both numbers).
"Barry the job killer" has the most job creation in 4 years. I'm not sure what you're basing your assessment upon. Perhaps propaganda, but you should educate yourself on these issues from a variety of sources in the future to learn the truth. Just look at the chart I posted above. You can call Obama many things, but the economy is creating jobs under him and the unemployment rate will soon start to drop after this short blip up due to people re-entering the job hunt.
Sure-
To paraphrase FDR "pigs is pigs and facts is facts".
No one in their right mind can be celebrating-
1. unemployment rate of 10%
2. defictis of over $1 trillion per year
3. A debt of $13 trillion
If one "creates" (government does not create jonbs- buisnesses do) fewer jobs than are lost, that is a very bad thing. If Obama creates 100 million jobs and 110 million jobs are lost, we are in worse shape.
Barry is a job killer. Apparently, he is also fond of mortgage foreclosures and unsustainable spending. When libs support a fool like this who is obviouly failing, it just makes them look ridiculous and unreliable, as they will support ANYTHING he does, regardless of how crazy it is. Clinton at least had a good economy, and credit should be given to him the republican senate and congress during that period for that. However, Barry, with his dems in the senate and congress, has been a disaster. Bush was a liberal as well and with a dem senate and congress another disaster occured.
Be objective. Barry is bad for the economy and things will only turn around when his socialist policies are scrapped and he is out of office. I have nothing against dems- just insane dems.
Ah, I see. Now that jobs are being created the target of attack has to start moving.
1. As you well know, unemployment is the last indicator to drop in a recovery. You're simply being impatient. The fact that it went up to 9.9% is a sign of sure recovery with people coming back into the job market (read the economists, not the politicians, who say that).
2. It's dangerous to pay down debt in the middle of a crisis, but that's the next big challenge that Obama is taking on. Everybody knows debt and deficit are too high, but every major nation in the world used these same tools to dig out of the collapse. In time, you will see these reduced as well.
So, what you're arguing is just that enough time hasn't passed.
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.
Not trying to be a wise a$$, but I'm curious as to how this will be accounted for officially.
