If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Unemployment falls to 10%. Apparently, there's no one left to lay off   (online.wsj.com) divider line 70
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

592 clicks; posted to Business » on 04 Dec 2009 at 1:42 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-12-04 01:15:02 PM
I wonder if this is just a seasonal hiring spike?
 
2009-12-04 01:20:33 PM
Weaver95: I wonder if this is just a seasonal hiring spike?

... because there are no seasonal adjustments in the monthly unemployment data?

FAIL.

If anything, the season adjustments in the current cycle would tend to make the reported unemployment rate higher, not lower.
 
2009-12-04 01:25:16 PM
bronyaur1: Weaver95: I wonder if this is just a seasonal hiring spike?

... because there are no seasonal adjustments in the monthly unemployment data?

FAIL.

If anything, the season adjustments in the current cycle would tend to make the reported unemployment rate higher, not lower.


y'know, I asked a question. A fairly innocent one at that. And look at how you responded - rudely.

which is certainly allowed. Fark is built on snark after all. But people remember how you answer questions and respond to others. When someone asks an honest question without snark and you respond in a hostile manner - well, don't be surprised if/when that comes back and hits you later.

just sayin you might want to think about how you phrase your replies dude.
 
2009-12-04 01:32:32 PM
Not so fast there subby. I've got a meeting in an hour about outsourcing, so I may laid off pretty soon.
 
2009-12-04 01:45:54 PM
Weaver95: y'know, I asked a question. A fairly innocent one at that. And look at how you responded - rudely.

Welcome to Fark. You put your ignorance out there, you will get smacked down. And it will be fun to watch.
 
2009-12-04 01:51:03 PM
At least we're doing our part to keep the numbers up at my job...they laid off about a quarter of our staff on Monday.

USA USA USA!
 
2009-12-04 01:55:22 PM
cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: y'know, I asked a question. A fairly innocent one at that. And look at how you responded - rudely.

Welcome to Fark. You put your ignorance out there, you will get smacked down. And it will be fun to watch.


While asking a question, COULD BE construed as putting your ignorance out there- it ain't like he gloated.

Those are the best FAIL responses. The other ones are just... forced.
 
2009-12-04 01:55:37 PM
Unemployment falls to 10%. Apparently, there's no one left to lay off

Well, not to be nitpicky, but by definition if unemployment is 10% there is still the remaining 90% to lay off.
 
2009-12-04 01:56:10 PM
Maybe a equivalent number to the decline are no longer eligible to be counted toward unemployment?
 
2009-12-04 01:58:11 PM
cameroncrazy1984: Welcome to Fark. You put your ignorance out there, you will get smacked down. And it will be fun to watch.

It's a legitimate question. They (the BLS) release raw data and seasonally adjusted data. Which one is this article referencing is a completely valid question.
 
2009-12-04 02:01:35 PM
10.0 Seasonally Adjusted
9.4 Unadjusted

Link (new window)
 
2009-12-04 02:02:31 PM
bronyaur1: Weaver95: I wonder if this is just a seasonal hiring spike?

... because there are no seasonal adjustments in the monthly unemployment data?

FAIL.

If anything, the season adjustments in the current cycle would tend to make the reported unemployment rate higher, not lower.


Could you douche up your response anymore, douchebag? You gave such a douchy answer, I'm not even going to consider how douchey the truth might be, because maybe you are a douchey liar, douche bag.
 
2009-12-04 02:05:18 PM
cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: y'know, I asked a question. A fairly innocent one at that. And look at how you responded - rudely.

Welcome to Fark. You put your ignorance out there, you will get smacked down. And it will be fun to watch.


you spend a lot of time on 4chan, don't you?
 
2009-12-04 02:06:52 PM
Debeo Summa Credo: Unemployment falls to 10%. Apparently, there's no one left to lay off

Well, not to be nitpicky, but by definition if unemployment is 10% there is still the remaining 90% to lay off.


I was about to ask the same thing.
 
2009-12-04 02:06:58 PM
You know, it seems to me a lot of companies are either in the middle of their fiscal year or at the end of their fiscal year, so they are now moving to be more in line with their operating budgets.

There's no guarantee that this trend may continue, based on this year's "consumer season."
 
2009-12-04 02:07:36 PM
How many are due to losing their unemployment or having to take a seasonal part-time job because you haven't been able to replace your real job?
 
2009-12-04 02:09:44 PM
Nemo's Brother: How many are due to losing their unemployment or having to take a seasonal part-time job because you haven't been able to replace your real job?

Considering both those scenarios are factored into the numbers, it would appear less than last month. I know how depressing it would be for you if this trend continues and Democrats don't lose big next year.
 
2009-12-04 02:11:01 PM
Cubicle Jockey: 10.0 Seasonally Adjusted
9.4 Unadjusted

Link (new window)


hmm. interesting. thanks dude!
 
2009-12-04 02:11:08 PM
Nemo's Brother
Receiving (or not receiving) unemployment benefits is irrelevant to the unemployment rate. So as long as you're still looking, you're counted as unemployed.

If you've given up looking because you're too emo to find a job, then you're not counted in the reported U-3 rate, but you do count in the U-6 rate, which also includes part-time folks hoping to work full-time. See that link Cubicle Jockey posted up there for the definitions of the various rates.
 
2009-12-04 02:18:50 PM
AppleOptionEsc: bronyaur1: Weaver95: I wonder if this is just a seasonal hiring spike?

... because there are no seasonal adjustments in the monthly unemployment data?

FAIL.

If anything, the season adjustments in the current cycle would tend to make the reported unemployment rate higher, not lower.

Could you douche up your response anymore, douchebag? You gave such a douchy answer, I'm not even going to consider how douchey the truth might be, because maybe you are a douchey liar, douche bag.


I think there should be some room for doucheness in unemployment threads. Soon someone will come in and say something like "people quit filing for benefits" and ignorance must be nipped at the bud.

/Was still probably too douchey
 
2009-12-04 02:21:00 PM
...expect more layoffs after new years. We're not done yet :P
 
2009-12-04 02:21:44 PM
Can we surgically tattoo the U-1 through U-6 definitions in the Boobies of a thread, wherein it also states 'filing for benefits is irrelevant to the unemployment rate(s).'?
 
2009-12-04 02:24:17 PM
You're the jerk... jerk: /Was still probably too douchey

I don't quibble with the douche factor, certain people just are that way. But his statement was wrong. There are two sets of data for most of the categories, non-adjusted and adjusted. So to say "... because there are no seasonal adjustments in the monthly unemployment data?" is ignorant because there are more than one data set.

/fun to watch
 
2009-12-04 02:25:08 PM
From what I can see, it's a mixed bag.

On the bad side, the number of people who have been unemployed long-term went up, and the number of people employed went down by a small number (11k).

So the reduction of the unemployment numbers from 10.2% to 10% just means more people are dropping off the job market, not that the job market is getting better.

On the plus side, they revised the job losses from September and October in a positive way. Looks like we lost 160k less jobs in those months that they had previously estimated.

Also, even though the job market continues to decline, it is declining at a very slow rate, which hopefully means a turnaround soon. Then again, when the stimulus money starts to run out we could find that we are really still in a deep recession after all.
 
2009-12-04 02:27:24 PM
Weaver95: you spend a lot of time on 4chan, don't you?

So do you, Weav95. Don't think I haven't seen you dropping requests in /r/ for 'crying loli h'.


Of course, once you got your job hear on FARK as "Queen of the Dumbasses", you stopped using your name over there, but not everyone forgets.

If I recall, you were a blowhard back then, too - "she's enjoying it too much, doesn't belong" was a favorite of yours.

/soem people never change
 
2009-12-04 02:27:52 PM
SomeAmerican:
Also, even though the job market continues to decline, it is declining at a very slow rate, which hopefully means a turnaround soon.


voices.washingtonpost.com

Pretty much, yes. My guess is it's going to be a fairly slow recovery from this point, but the trend is looking pretty good.

Then again, when the stimulus money starts to run out we could find that we are really still in a deep recession after all.

Perhaps, but a lot of the stimulus money isn't even out yet - a lot of it is coming in 2010. The idea is by the time the stimulus has been spent the recession will be over, and we can afford to cut back on government spending once the private sector is sufficiently robust to provide jobs.
 
2009-12-04 02:28:21 PM
SomeAmerican: Then again, when the stimulus money starts to run out we could find that we are really still in a deep recession after all.

I thought I heard the other day that only about 25% of the stimulus money has been spent.
 
2009-12-04 02:29:29 PM
An important thing to consider is this - employers shed 11,000 jobs, fewest since Dec. 2007.
 
2009-12-04 02:31:40 PM
Nemo's Brother: How many are due to losing their unemployment or having to take a seasonal part-time job because you haven't been able to replace your real job?

* raises hand *
 
2009-12-04 02:34:00 PM
Aarontology: Not so fast there subby. I've got a meeting in an hour about outsourcing, so I may laid off pretty soon.

Someone please post a pic of "the Bobs" for this guy.

/Do you like micheal bolton?
 
2009-12-04 02:43:24 PM
bronyaur1: FAIL.

If anything, the season adjustments in the current cycle would tend to make the reported unemployment rate higher, not lower.


Improper response:
Weaver95: y'know, I asked a question. A fairly innocent one at that. And look at how you responded - rudely.

which is certainly allowed. Fark is built on snark after all. But people remember how you answer questions and respond to others. When someone asks an honest question without snark and you respond in a hostile manner - well, don't be surprised if/when that comes back and hits you later.

just sayin you might want to think about how you phrase your replies dude.



Proper response:
Touche bronyaur1. Now go fark yourself....
 
2009-12-04 02:44:49 PM
SomeAmerican: On the bad side, the number of people who have been unemployed long-term went up, and the number of people employed went down by a small number (11k).

So the reduction of the unemployment numbers from 10.2% to 10% just means more people are dropping off the job market, not that the job market is getting better.


Only 100k of the 325k reduction in unemployment was people dropping out of the job market. It's not uncommon that the jobs and unemployment #'s don't match, and there's always the later adjustments so we'll see.
 
2009-12-04 02:49:52 PM
The largest month for job loses was Jan '09. It has improved since then. Until Jan 20th 2009, Bush was President.
 
2009-12-04 03:01:02 PM
The Obama administration said the stimulus would keep the jobless rate around 8 percent.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently reported that the stimulus generated between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs. At best, as of now, the stimulus has cost $491,875 per job created. Meanwhile, the nation still languishes in double-digit unemployment.

/Bush was a idiot
//Obama is a farking idiot
 
2009-12-04 03:05:20 PM
milesl:
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently reported that the stimulus generated between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs.


Which is exactly what it was expected to generate at this point in time. So I'm glad you're admitting that the stimulus has been just as effective as advertised.
 
2009-12-04 03:17:48 PM
Racht
bp0.blogger.com
 
2009-12-04 03:24:43 PM
milesl: The Obama administration said the stimulus would keep the jobless rate around 8 percent.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently reported that the stimulus generated between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs. At best, as of now, the stimulus has cost $491,875 per job created. Meanwhile, the nation still languishes in double-digit unemployment.

/Bush was a idiot
//Obama is a farking idiot


So what ideas do you have other than 'Bush wasn't conservative enough!!!one!!!'
 
2009-12-04 03:24:49 PM
Wellll, SCEA will do its part to bring that number back up. It's laying off my dept and another on the 11th.
 
2009-12-04 03:29:26 PM
stpickrell: Can we surgically tattoo the U-1 through U-6 definitions in the Boobies of a thread, wherein it also states 'filing for benefits is irrelevant to the unemployment rate(s).'?

You had me at "tattooed boobiees."
 
2009-12-04 03:38:28 PM
milesl: The Obama administration said the stimulus would keep the jobless rate around 8 percent.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently reported that the stimulus generated between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs. At best, as of now, the stimulus has cost $491,875 per job created. Meanwhile, the nation still languishes in double-digit unemployment.

/Bush was a idiot
//Obama is a farking idiot


Which is faulty logic, since you are basing that math on the supposition that all of the stimulus money has been spent, which it hasn't, as has been explained and declared on numerous occasions, even in this very thread.

$491,875 * 1.6 million = 787 billion obviously.
That is the math you used, which is wrong, because that precludes all of the stimulus being used.

In actuality, if only about 25% of the stimulus has been used, then we arrive at this equation:

196750000000 / 1600000 = $122,968.75 per job created.

Still a lot of money, but much less than the incorrectly skewed version you presented.
 
2009-12-04 03:57:16 PM
Hooray, the recession is over?
 
2009-12-04 04:02:58 PM
milesl: Racht

If you would care to dispute my factual assertion that the stimulus has in fact generated the same number of jobs that it was predicted it would, go for it.

Or you could just post a picture. I guess that's what people do when they have no actual argument.
 
2009-12-04 04:13:32 PM
Silly little people. Your fortunes get raided by 21st century robber barons with big corporate names and you blame that Obama chap.

Why don't you help me crush some more unions and beat down some more reforms while I work the other side and rape your children's future.

drbobbs.files.wordpress.com

/Hot like this guys bi-coastal mistresses.
 
2009-12-04 04:19:47 PM
Racht: milesl: Racht

If you would care to dispute my factual assertion that the stimulus has in fact generated the same number of jobs that it was predicted it would, go for it.

Or you could just post a picture. I guess that's what people do when they have no actual argument.


Or they eat a bag of cocks.
 
2009-12-04 04:22:09 PM
I got my numbers from an article I read today
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/04/dems_doing_liberalism_badl y _99401.html

The author has worked or written for leftwing publications, so I falsely assumed the writer was liberal. When did Huffington Post allow stupid and ignorant rightwingers to right for them?

David Paul Kuhn is an author and political commentator. He is currently the Chief Political Correspondent for RealClearPolitics and a Senior Political Writer for Politico.com. Previously he held the position of Senior Political Writer at CBS. His work has appeared in many other news outlets including: The Washington Post, Salon.com the Huffington Post and the Wall Street Journal. His book titled "The Neglected Voter" received wide praise. General Wesley Clark said the book was "A brilliantly insightful analysis of American politics at the national level." Kuhn was educated at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire and got his start in news as an intern at Time Magazine.

David Paul Kuhn is an expert analyst of presidential and gender politics. He is the author of The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma. James Carville called it a "must read for Democrats who want to win" and General Wes Clark called it "A brilliantly insightful analysis of American politics at the national level." Kuhn specializes in the male side of the gender gap. He covered the 2008 presidential election as a Senior Political Writer for the conversation-driver Politico.com and covered the 2004 presidential campaign as Chief Political Writer for CBS News. He has also written for publications from The Washington Post Magazine to The Wall Street Journal, and has appeared as a frequent commentator on news networks from BBC to CNN.
 
2009-12-04 04:24:43 PM
all right Racht
I'm calling BS on your assertion
"If you would care to dispute my factual assertion that the stimulus has in fact generated the same number of jobs that it was predicted it would, go for it."
prove it
 
2009-12-04 04:24:50 PM
Racht: Nemo's Brother: How many are due to losing their unemployment or having to take a seasonal part-time job because you haven't been able to replace your real job?

Considering both those scenarios are factored into the numbers, it would appear less than last month. I know how depressing it would be for you if this trend continues and Democrats don't lose big next year.


I was just asking. I remember a story about a month ago about how many hundreds of thousands were about to lose their benefits. It coincides with these numbers.
 
2009-12-04 04:51:56 PM
Some more anecdata:

I've seen a big uptick in potential projects of late. In the past three weeks I've sent out four estimates, which is about as many as I sent in the previous three months, and they've been for much larger projects.

So there's that.
 
2009-12-04 05:24:01 PM
Weaver95: bronyaur1: Weaver95: I wonder if this is just a seasonal hiring spike?

... because there are no seasonal adjustments in the monthly unemployment data?

FAIL.

If anything, the season adjustments in the current cycle would tend to make the reported unemployment rate higher, not lower.

y'know, I asked a question. A fairly innocent one at that. And look at how you responded - rudely.

which is certainly allowed. Fark is built on snark after all. But people remember how you answer questions and respond to others. When someone asks an honest question without snark and you respond in a hostile manner - well, don't be surprised if/when that comes back and hits you later.

just sayin you might want to think about how you phrase your replies dude.


RedThree: Weaver95: you spend a lot of time on 4chan, don't you?
Of course, once you got your job hear on FARK as "Queen of the Dumbasses", you stopped using your name over there, but not everyone forgets.
/soem people never change


Your lack of civility is unwarranted.

*checks profile* Account Created: 2005-09-07 10:28:24

www.dailyhaha.com
 
2009-12-04 05:29:09 PM
Maybe someone in this thread could answer something I've been wondering about. How are students (high school, college, etc.) who have graduated and are looking to start their first real job counted? It's not like they had a job and lost it. I am curious because I know many recent graduates who have had difficulty finding jobs.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report