How about no.

It's going to take a while.

So it's a Toyota stuck in neutral?

HotIgneous Intruder: How about no.

How bout... we look at the facts and ignore whatever narrative you're invested in propagating?

I'm sure the republicans will find some way to make things worse.

Picture of submitter:

Lorelle: Damnit, MarketWatch, why did you report this?? Now the Teabaggers will create another phony "crisis" in order to sabotage it again.

Farking Allah, you just can't stop with your small-minded and ill-informed attempts at insults, can you?

Grow up.

As for the post?
Most appropriate use of the 'UNLIKELY' tag I think I have ever seen.

Article is just wishful thinking. Only 80k jobs were created. Setting aside that number will probably be revised downward in a few months, to make a meaningful dent in the unemployment rate, we need jobs numbers about 3x that. 80k new jobs a month makes the actual unemployment progressively worse as the U.S. population is growing faster than that.

douchebag/hater: Lorelle: Damnit, MarketWatch, why did you report this?? Now the Teabaggers will create another phony "crisis" in order to sabotage it again.

Farking Allah, you just can't stop with your small-minded and ill-informed attempts at insults, can you?

Grow up.

As for the post?
Most appropriate use of the 'UNLIKELY' tag I think I have ever seen.

Thoughts moving as slow as economy?

Again, all the fundamentals are good.

Only the real-estate market is farked for the next 2 years.
If only all the idiots would stop saying "The sky is falling, The sky is falling"

That, and stop worrying about Europe...they'll figure it out...or have another war.
Whichever comes first.

And if the US govt gets its act together, it would help...but it doesn't have to.
Sooner or later, enough asshats will be ousted...and the better heads will prevail...for awhile...

Put it in "H"!

I'm thinking of the future and openly shiatting myself.

gwydion56: Pumpernickel bread: Article is just wishful thinking. Only 80k jobs were created. Setting aside that number will probably be revised downward in a few months, to make a meaningful dent in the unemployment rate, we need jobs numbers about 3x that. 80k new jobs a month makes the actual unemployment progressively worse as the U.S. population is growing faster than that.

Which is why the unemployment rate fell from 9.1% to 9.0%.

Wait... what??

It helps the unemployment figures when you stop counting certain unemployed people.

Stibium: It helps the unemployment figures when you stop counting certain unemployed people.

That thread is two down.

gwydion56: Pumpernickel bread: Article is just wishful thinking. Only 80k jobs were created. Setting aside that number will probably be revised downward in a few months, to make a meaningful dent in the unemployment rate, we need jobs numbers about 3x that. 80k new jobs a month makes the actual unemployment progressively worse as the U.S. population is growing faster than that.

Which is why the unemployment rate fell from 9.1% to 9.0%.

Wait... what??


Discouraged workers. That is why the actual employment picture is getting worse, but the "official" unemployment can seemingly improve.

Still awaiting updates on how Leon's size is trending.

Algebrat: Pumpernickel bread: gwydion56: Pumpernickel bread: Article is just wishful thinking. Only 80k jobs were created. Setting aside that number will probably be revised downward in a few months, to make a meaningful dent in the unemployment rate, we need jobs numbers about 3x that. 80k new jobs a month makes the actual unemployment progressively worse as the U.S. population is growing faster than that.

Which is why the unemployment rate fell from 9.1% to 9.0%.

Wait... what??


Discouraged workers. That is why the actual employment picture is getting worse, but the "official" unemployment can seemingly improve.

The U6 rate (which counts discouraged workers) fell from 16.5% to 16.2% in October. Next excuse?

Some other measurement error, be it inadvertent or intentionally introduced. No reasonable person would buy the unemployemt picture is getting better when so few jobs are being produced. It is a mathematical impossibility.

Pumpernickel bread: Algebrat: Pumpernickel bread: gwydion56: Pumpernickel bread: Article is just wishful thinking. Only 80k jobs were created. Setting aside that number will probably be revised downward in a few months, to make a meaningful dent in the unemployment rate, we need jobs numbers about 3x that. 80k new jobs a month makes the actual unemployment progressively worse as the U.S. population is growing faster than that.

Which is why the unemployment rate fell from 9.1% to 9.0%.

Wait... what??


Discouraged workers. That is why the actual employment picture is getting worse, but the "official" unemployment can seemingly improve.

The U6 rate (which counts discouraged workers) fell from 16.5% to 16.2% in October. Next excuse?

Some other measurement error, be it inadvertent or intentionally introduced. No reasonable person would buy the unemployemt picture is getting better when so few jobs are being produced. It is a mathematical impossibility.

What's their criteria for defining jobs? Perhaps they aren't accounting for all markets.

hufnmouth: Pumpernickel bread: Algebrat: Pumpernickel bread: gwydion56: Pumpernickel bread: Article is just wishful thinking. Only 80k jobs were created. Setting aside that number will probably be revised downward in a few months, to make a meaningful dent in the unemployment rate, we need jobs numbers about 3x that. 80k new jobs a month makes the actual unemployment progressively worse as the U.S. population is growing faster than that.

Which is why the unemployment rate fell from 9.1% to 9.0%.

Wait... what??


Discouraged workers. That is why the actual employment picture is getting worse, but the "official" unemployment can seemingly improve.

The U6 rate (which counts discouraged workers) fell from 16.5% to 16.2% in October. Next excuse?

Some other measurement error, be it inadvertent or intentionally introduced. No reasonable person would buy the unemployemt picture is getting better when so few jobs are being produced. It is a mathematical impossibility.

What's their criteria for defining jobs? Perhaps they aren't accounting for all markets.

The 80k "net jobs gained" number is total non-farm payroll employment. That number comes from asking businesses (not including farms) who is on the payroll.

The headline unemployment rate (9.0%) comes from household surveys. According to those figures, the number of people working rose from 140,025,000 to 140,302,000 ... a gain of 277,000 jobs.

Obviously, part of the difference is farm-jobs, the self-employed & cash-in-hand jobs etc. Workers that are never going to show up on non-farm payroll.

But (according to the FAQ section on the labor bureau Link (new window)) there's an even simpler explanation: the household survey data has a small sample size ... it has to show a change of 400,000 jobs to be statistically significant.

So (just roughly eyeballing the numbers), last months headline figure was 9.1%, but could've really been anywhere between 8.9 and 9.3%. This month's headline figure is 9.0%, but could really be anywhere between 8.8 and 9.2%. There's no real evidence that unemployment decreased this month. It might have, but could also have been sampling error.

Basically, take the headline figure with caution: it's just a rough estimate. Unemployment is definitely down from Oct last year (when it was 9.7%), and probably down a bit from June this year (when it was 9.2%) ... but it hasn't changed much over the last 3 months.