Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(NPR)   New Jobs report: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%. November's Jobs report: Mitt Romney still unemployed   (npr.org) divider line 714
    More: Spiffy, Mitt Romney, Alan Krueger, a.m. ET, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment  
•       •       •

1196 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Sep 2012 at 11:10 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



714 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-07 11:23:34 AM  

colon_pow: if only more of you idiots would have given up on finding a job, the rate might have dropped below 8.

c'mon now. get busy and give up for obama!


You sound concerned, want a tax cut?

/my new catchphrase
/trademarked
/copyrighted
 
2012-09-07 11:23:34 AM  
96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.
 
2012-09-07 11:23:43 AM  

NateGrey: Looking good:

[www.electoral-vote.com image 375x120]


It's a very tenuous lead. A 2 point flip turns, like, 5 states.
 
2012-09-07 11:23:48 AM  

sprawl15: bmongar: sprawl15: ghare: So, you're saying the money isn't trickling down?

He's saying that it's a damn shame that children aren't working.


And the elderly don't forget the elderly.

Nope, the elderly should just die already.


Well, we can all agree on that.
 
2012-09-07 11:24:03 AM  

adiabat: Good news is the U-6 is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


research.stlouisfed.org
 
2012-09-07 11:24:11 AM  

ferretman: GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.

It's a false growth though.


You need to post those shadow stats written by that fictional character from Fight Club. Those are always very convincing.
 
2012-09-07 11:24:12 AM  

colon_pow: if only more of you idiots would have given up on finding a job, the rate might have dropped below 8.

c'mon now. get busy and give up for obama!

www.usefulidiots.net

i959.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-07 11:24:20 AM  

adiabat: Good news is the U-6 ( Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


It helps that Clinton gave Bush a 4.2% U3 rate to start with.

Bush
1/20/2001: 4.2%
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Unemployment Rate Change: 83.33% increase

Obama
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Currently: 8.1%
Unemployment Rate Change: 5.19% increase
 
2012-09-07 11:24:45 AM  

DamnYankees: impaler: U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74.

Interesting. Why is that? What's the meaning of that number?


The meaning of U3 and U6 is pretty straightforward. They're often closely correlated because of the nature of the two numbers.
 
2012-09-07 11:24:52 AM  

BritneysSpeculum: sweetmelissa31: If we bring back child labor that number will certainly decrease.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 568x720]

That coal ain't gonna mine itself.


What is that kid lounging around for, posing for a picture? If he doesn't work harder he will never grow up to be a millionaire.
 
2012-09-07 11:25:38 AM  

sprawl15: DamnYankees: impaler: U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74.

Interesting. Why is that? What's the meaning of that number?

The meaning of U3 and U6 is pretty straightforward. They're often closely correlated because of the nature of the two numbers.


That I understand. I'm just curious why its "1.74". Seems oddly specific.
 
2012-09-07 11:26:31 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Probably not all 368k, but significantly enough?


Well just consider the oldest baby boomers are 66 or turning 66 this year. If we take 65 as a standard that means there are are already a ton of people who either have retired or will soon retire.
 
2012-09-07 11:26:33 AM  
Who cares how many jobs have been added. What is important is what those jobs actually are. There is quite a difference between adding 96,000 burger flippers or 96,000 paper pushers or 96,000 manufacturers or 96,000 R+D guys.

We care too much about raw numbers, not nearly enough about what is behind those raw numbers. The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy. On the other hand, the government could lay off a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as huge job losses on these reports, but that would actually be good for the economy.

Or we can just use this number as another score in the eternal left vs right football game.
 
2012-09-07 11:26:38 AM  

colon_pow: if only more of you idiots would have given up on finding a job, the rate might have dropped below 8.

c'mon now. get busy and give up for obama!


Didn't you hear Obama's new SSI offer? For a limited time only, you can retire as early as 55 and still get full Social Security and Medicare benefits!

/ACT NOW! offer expires soon!
//payments only guaranteed until U.S.A. Inc. goes bankrupt
 
2012-09-07 11:26:41 AM  

ferretman: Jobs growth cools in August, seen forcing Fed's hand


The jobless rate peaked at 10 percent in October 2009, but progress reducing it stalled this year, threatening Obama's bid for a second term. An online Reuters/Ipsos poll on Thursday gave Republican Challenger Mitt Romney a 1-point edge on Obama, 45 percent to 44 percent.

I like this part of her analysis of the U3. If you think this person is providing an unbiased analysis, you are a fool.
 
2012-09-07 11:27:10 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: Red Shirt Blues: So after almost 4 years unemployment 8.1%. The decline in the unemployment rate wasn't because more people had jobs. The number of people employed as measured by the household survey declined by 119,000. The fall came from fewer people looking for work in August and dropping out of the labor force.

Spin it however you want. All economic indicators point to it getting better. We (The USA) are in a better place than last year economically.


encrypted-tbn1.google.com
"They're waiting for you"
 
2012-09-07 11:27:21 AM  

MattStafford: The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy.


I don't believe it would be, actually.
 
2012-09-07 11:27:44 AM  

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


WHAR JOBS BILL BOEHNER WHAR?
 
2012-09-07 11:27:53 AM  

jj325: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Low taxes, stock market at a record high, record corporate profits... how's that trickle down thing working for you guys?

The trickle down won't kick in until all abortions are illegal, creationism is taught in our schools, and only white landowners can vote.


Always an open minded dem to drop the race card first. 1/10 for getting me to reply, troll.
 
2012-09-07 11:27:59 AM  

MattStafford: but that would actually be good for the economy.


No, it would be bad for the economy.
 
2012-09-07 11:28:39 AM  

theknuckler_33: 96K was NOT a good number for Obama.


It doesn't matter. The only number that will get any play is the 8.1.
 
2012-09-07 11:28:57 AM  

sprawl15: impaler: adiabat: Good news is the U-6 ( Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.

The "real" number? All countries use U3 as the standard metric.

U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74. They say the same thing, just have a different scale. Why would you call the larger scale "real" when people use the smaller one?

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

[img855.imageshack.us image 630x378]

FTFY


That's a good chart. It's improved, and it hasn't moved in the opposite direction which would be a true disaster.... but the numbers have always been less than reliable, given the number of people who have stopped looking, are living off college loans/grants/family gifts, aren't reporting to their state unemployment office in spite of looking because they're 99ers, are 'involuntarily self-employed' and/or working under the table.

It's improved, but there's still a hell of a lot more work to be done to reassign people in a globally competitive environment.
 
2012-09-07 11:29:04 AM  

impaler: adiabat: Good news is the U-6 is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]


It's like when you're playing Catchphrase, and the person before you takes 45 seconds to get the word "boat", and then throws it to you right as the buzzer sounds. I mean, yea, you lost that round, but come on!

Or is that just me?
 
2012-09-07 11:29:10 AM  
Not really seeing the "spiffy" here, subs
 
2012-09-07 11:29:41 AM  

DamnYankees: That I understand. I'm just curious why its "1.74". Seems oddly specific.


Well, it's specific because it was calculated using historical info. On average, it's about 1.74 times larger. But it has nothing to do with how either number is put together; there's no causal element involved. It's just a coincidence, one that happens to undermine the opportunistic nature of some people to switch from U3 to U6 numbers when their argument isn't going well. "The numbers may have gone down, but there's this U6 number that's BIGGER!!" Well, it went down in the same proportion.
 
2012-09-07 11:29:52 AM  
research.stlouisfed.org
Hmm, notice how things went to shiat with the election of the 2010 GOP House and additional GOP in the Senate...
 
2012-09-07 11:30:09 AM  

sprawl15: DamnYankees: That I understand. I'm just curious why its "1.74". Seems oddly specific.

Well, it's specific because it was calculated using historical info. On average, it's about 1.74 times larger. But it has nothing to do with how either number is put together; there's no causal element involved. It's just a coincidence, one that happens to undermine the opportunistic nature of some people to switch from U3 to U6 numbers when their argument isn't going well. "The numbers may have gone down, but there's this U6 number that's BIGGER!!" Well, it went down in the same proportion.


Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the info.
 
2012-09-07 11:30:41 AM  

skullkrusher: Not really seeing the "spiffy" here, subs


Liters. How stupid.
 
2012-09-07 11:30:41 AM  

DamnYankees: That I understand. I'm just curious why its "1.74". Seems oddly specific.


Why is there 2.12 degrees Fahrenheit for every degree Celsius?

No matter the economy, for ever 10 unemployed, there are 7 extra marginally attached workers. This ratio changes very little.
 
2012-09-07 11:31:21 AM  

impaler: Why is there 2.12 degrees Fahrenheit for every degree Celsius?


...there isn't?
 
2012-09-07 11:31:25 AM  

Masso: School also just started. Someone pointed out that a big majority of those that stop looking for work is highschool/undergrad age bracket.


I would think that things like that would be removed from their numbers, remember they're always reported as 'seasonally adjusted', the goal of which is to remove normal seasonal fluctuations like holiday season hiring from the reported figures. I would be very surprised if whatever impact school starting/ending has on employment is not part of the seasonal adjustment.
 
2012-09-07 11:31:32 AM  

hbk72777: JusticeandIndependence: Red Shirt Blues: So after almost 4 years unemployment 8.1%. The decline in the unemployment rate wasn't because more people had jobs. The number of people employed as measured by the household survey declined by 119,000. The fall came from fewer people looking for work in August and dropping out of the labor force.

Spin it however you want. All economic indicators point to it getting better. We (The USA) are in a better place than last year economically.

[encrypted-tbn1.google.com image 276x182]
"They're waiting for you"


Are you suggesting that we are in worse shape than last year?
 
2012-09-07 11:31:50 AM  

MattStafford: Who cares how many jobs have been added


the people who have the jobs probably care...
 
2012-09-07 11:32:28 AM  

Dr Dreidel: WhyteRaven74: ferretman: .with 368,000 people who dropped out

Ever heard of retirement?

With both the U3 and U6 dropping, is it fair to guess that, as a result of so many businesses getting business back and the stock market taking off, we're seeing a wave of people who had previously been delaying retirement who are now again able?

Probably not all 368k, but significantly enough?

// and what's the "underemployment" measure?


"Underemployment" is like me, who should be a free safety in the NFL but instead has to do whatever it is I've been doing for the last 20 years while I wait for Clark Hunt to answer my emails.
 
2012-09-07 11:32:35 AM  

NateGrey: ITT

Fark Cons explain why the unemployment rate going down is bad.


People giving up and dropping out of the workforce isn't bad?
 
2012-09-07 11:32:43 AM  

MattStafford: Who cares how many jobs have been added. What is important is what those jobs actually are. There is quite a difference between adding 96,000 burger flippers or 96,000 paper pushers or 96,000 manufacturers or 96,000 R+D guys.

We care too much about raw numbers, not nearly enough about what is behind those raw numbers. The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy. On the other hand, the government could lay off a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as huge job losses on these reports, but that would actually be good for the economy.

Or we can just use this number as another score in the eternal left vs right football game.


using ditch diggers is a bad example. ditch diggers actually 'produce' something.
should have used 'middle managers' instead?
or 'government jobs'. because what happens when the only reliable employment .. is through the government?
 
2012-09-07 11:32:46 AM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy.

I don't believe it would be, actually.


Well, sorry to say, but you've been brainwashed. Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy. It also massively distorts the economy, and sets it up for a crash when the spending spigot is eventually turned off.

What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.

Or you can keep on believing that going into debt then spending that money on absolutely nothing productive is somehow beneficial for the economy in the long run.
 
2012-09-07 11:32:46 AM  

theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.


I don't completely agree.

96K and the U3 increases to 8.4% (very bad)
96K and the U3 holds at 8.3% (bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.2% (not bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.1% and the U6 drops from 15.0% to 14.7% (hopeful/good IMHO)

Obama can't stop people from retiring and people going back to school to re-train/re-skill is not a bad thing.
 
2012-09-07 11:32:55 AM  

urban.derelict: [lh5.googleusercontent.com image 320x240]


thank you kindly, sir

/subby
//btw, how much did farkers personally invest in the Obama campaign in the last 24 hrs?
///I think I tallied up at least $100 just from my TF gifting
 
2012-09-07 11:33:20 AM  

LucklessWonder: Politics has gotten so divisive. Let me post something that will help the healing of this country, whether you are Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Fascist or Communist. Behold, the healing power of.... [www.989thedrive.com image 500x569]


I'm sorry, but that's not sufficient. More is required.
 
2012-09-07 11:34:00 AM  

DamnYankees: Really? We're switching threads because the mods changed their minds on a headline? We had discussed in the other green thread going on.

Lame.


I take it you had a vested interest in the other thread? Subby, perhaps?
 
2012-09-07 11:34:02 AM  

WhyteRaven74: MattStafford: but that would actually be good for the economy.

No, it would be bad for the economy.


No, it would be good for the economy. Stopping paying people who do absolutely nothing frees up capital to be used in a productive manner.
 
2012-09-07 11:34:10 AM  

theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.


No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.
 
2012-09-07 11:34:17 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Low taxes, stock market at a record high, record corporate profits... how's that trickle down thing working for you guys?


It's working great. Look at all my big, fat bags of money. And my yacht. And my personal physician. And my private security force that protects my giant house in the middle of my big gated community. Look at the senator I bought and the election I'm stealing. Look at my plane. Look at my 20 year-old wife with the silicon jugs. I'm doing great. Have a crum, peasant. It's tricklin' down, muthaf*cka!
 
2012-09-07 11:34:35 AM  

theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.


Exactly. It was a crappy jobs report. Not disasterous, but lousy.
 
2012-09-07 11:35:09 AM  

MattStafford: Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy.


Yes, we could use that boost. Those works would have more money to spend, and given they are unemployed, the multiplier would likely be very large. The fact that they are digging ditches is irrelevant - I'd be happy to just give them the money for doing nothing, but if you want to make them dig ditches, whatever.

MattStafford: It also massively distorts the economy


I dont' know what this means.

MattStafford: What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.


I like in your telling of the story, the money earned by these individuals does absolutely nothing. They don't spend it on food, consumables or entertainment. It just sits there waiting for a crash.
 
2012-09-07 11:35:44 AM  

somedude210: DamnYankees: Really? We're switching threads because the mods changed their minds on a headline? We had discussed in the other green thread going on.

Lame.

I take it you had a vested interest in the other thread? Subby, perhaps?


Nope, not subby. Just annoyed the conversations died.
 
2012-09-07 11:36:02 AM  
Now, I'm not saying everything is great. But...
i376.photobucket.com

and...
i376.photobucket.com

may have something to do with this...
 
2012-09-07 11:36:51 AM  

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


It's almost as if a large group of people suddenly hit retirement age. Some sort of seventy year old demographic anomaly, like a baby boom.
 
2012-09-07 11:36:54 AM  

starsrift: LucklessWonder: Politics has gotten so divisive. Let me post something that will help the healing of this country, whether you are Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Fascist or Communist. Behold, the healing power of.... [www.989thedrive.com image 500x569]

I'm sorry, but that's not sufficient. More is required.


so tell your congressman to quit filibustering the jobs bill
 
Displayed 50 of 714 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report