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.

(CBS DC)   White House: "It is important not to read too much into one monthly jobs report." Probably not the past 41 monthly reports either   (washington.cbslocal.com) divider line 384
    More: Obvious, White House, Alan Krueger, CBS Radio  
•       •       •

1423 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 Sep 2012 at 3:16 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-07 03:43:45 PM  

James!: I keep hearing the sky is falling, but I've had 3 recruiters call me in the last week.


Oh goody, another thread about data where we tell personal anecdotes as if they mean anything
 
2012-09-07 03:44:01 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?


www.bonappetit.com
 
2012-09-07 03:44:10 PM  

jst3p: sprawl15: jst3p: Cheesecake, with its lack of a top crust, is technically a pie. And cheesecake is greater than cherry pie.

The best cheesecake doesn't need a crust. Just a crumble.

/seriously, the trick to cheesecake is to rice the cream cheese


upgrade the exaust, body kits, nitrous, spoilers, speakers, lights?

[www.civicforumz.com image 400x300]


You forgot the Type-R sticker.

That's worth at least 20 horsepower.
 
2012-09-07 03:44:19 PM  
I love these back and forths.

Person 1: "More people have lost their jobs under Obama."
Person 2: "No they haven't, the job losses started with Bush, and here are some graphs that show that."
Person 1: "Those graphs are misleading."
Person 2: "How? Explain."
Person 1: "Congress was run by the Democrats starting in 2006, that's why the economy crashed."
Person 2: "Congress has been stifled by the Republicans starting in 2010, that's why the economy is stalled."

etc.
 
2012-09-07 03:44:39 PM  

theknuckler_33: TIKIMAN87: 386,000 people dropped from looking for employment last month.

96,000 jobs created and unemployment drops .2%. WTF

This is Obamas America everybody. Sucking off the government.

Throw his ass out!

The birth rate (per 1000 population) during the early part of the baby-boom (~1945-1950) was in the neighborhod of about 24. The US population during those years averaged roughly 145 million.

(145 million/1000) x 24 is about 3.5 million births per year on (rough) average. Every one of those people is 62 or older now with even larger numbers of people approaching those ages. If hundreds of thousands of these people are dropping out of job searches on a monthly basis now for 'early' retirement... so be it.


FTFM
 
2012-09-07 03:44:51 PM  

TIKIMAN87:

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.


If by two years, you mean 20 working days in the middle of 2009, then yes, he did.
 
2012-09-07 03:45:20 PM  

coeyagi: praymantis: CPennypacker: TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

FALSE

Hey I can do that too TRUE

Ok, facts.

Al Franken wasn't confirmed until May, June 2009? Something like that. Then Kennedy dies in September 2009? I may be off by a month or two for each. And then Scott Brown gets in Jan 2010. So.... you're looking at about 4-6 months of filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Again, FALSE.


You also have to factor in the fact that Congress gets a month off for July 4. And a week for Labor Day. I remember running the numbers - the Dems had something like 2 WEEKS in session with 58 votes, plus Lieberman and Specter.
 
2012-09-07 03:45:48 PM  

WhyteRaven74: There are other options, invest in capital improvements ie buy new equipment to replace old equipment, increase wages, like Caterpillar which has in place a freeze on wage increases while reporting record profits, hire back people that were let go. Just because 10 people can manage to do the work of 12 does not mean having them do so is a good idea. If a company is making as much stuff as before it laid people off but doing it with fewer workers it's not exactly do anyone, including itself, any favors. And there are other options as well, though some are industry specific but they are there.


so your plan is to blame the private sector for not doing stuff that will reduce their profitability?
 
2012-09-07 03:46:02 PM  
Now is as good a time as any to ask a question that bugs me about this metric: What the hell does it mean "given up looking for a job"??

What does that mean? What CAN it mean? Does it mean that people have accepted living homeless and broke is now their lot in life and that they no longer even seek employment? Does it mean they've just stopped collecting unemployment? That they've merely stopped using regular (i.e. government tracked) employment agencies? Or that when asked, they flippantly replied, "Nah, I've stopped even looking for work"? Or were previously the unemployed job-seekers being classed as "employed" as in "employed in seeking employment"?

It seems to me there are only two states of being: Either you are employed or you are not. And regardless of whether you are "looking" for a job or have "given up looking" and resigned yourself to eating scraps from the dumpster behind McDonalds, in both cases you are NOT EMPLOYED.

Is there some other, third state of being regarding jobs I'm unaware of? Or is this like how the budget was artificially lowered by not counting war costs, only in reverse: "We've decided that the unemployed job-seekers are now officially unemployed and no longer officially...unemployed"?
 
2012-09-07 03:46:31 PM  

make me some tea: I love these back and forths.

Person 1: "More people have lost their jobs under Obama."
Person 2: "No they haven't, the job losses started with Bush, and here are some graphs that show that."
Person 1: "Those graphs are misleading."
Person 2: "How? Explain."
Person 1: "Congress was run by the Democrats starting in 2006, that's why the economy crashed."
Person 2: "Congress has been stifled by the Republicans starting in 2010, that's why the economy is stalled."

etc.


Don't forget that no one is allowed to place even the smallest amount of blame on Obama's predecessor but it is completely acceptable, encouraged even, to compare Obama to Carter repeatedly.
 
2012-09-07 03:47:07 PM  
There are 243,566,000 Americans at least 16 years old; and not in the military, prison, mental hospital or a nursing home.

Of those, 88,921,000 are not working nor have looked for a job in the past four weeks. In other words, 37% of people capable of working don't even attempt to get a job. Another 12,544,000 are looking for work, but remain unemployed, which is 5% of the pool of people capable of working.

Of the pool of people capable of working, only 58% of them are actually working - 142,101,000 people.

Assuming a US population of 315,000,000 people, that is only 45% of the total population of the USA that works.

Obama's America
 
2012-09-07 03:47:14 PM  

Minarets: TIKIMAN87:

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

If by two years, you mean 20 working days in the middle of 2009, then yes, he did.


he'll just toss that lie out next time he gets the chance, it's not the he's unaware that he's wrong.

Notice he never addressed his "point" being smacked down, he just moved onto another BS talking point..if that gets smacked down, guess what? he'll toss out another.
 
2012-09-07 03:48:19 PM  
Romney's plan is to cut government to the bone and boost profits for the wealthy. Everybody wave bye-bye as China leaves us in the dustheap of history:

China approves $157-billion infrastructure spending



http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/07/china-economy-idINDEE8860E22 0 120907
 
2012-09-07 03:48:43 PM  

skullkrusher: so your plan is to blame the private sector for not doing stuff that will reduce their profitability?


Capital expenditures come with tax benefits, namely depreciation on equipment. Indeed for everything I mentioned there are tax benefits. Also, how is a company going to maintain profitability if its revenues don't grow? And funny the CEO's of times past had no problem lowering their profit margins for a while just to make sure they'd have higher ones later. Or even have them later.
 
2012-09-07 03:48:47 PM  
Listen Republicans, if you want to pin the current economy on Obama then you first have to admit that GWB was responsible for the failure of an economy he handed Obama. I'm not holding my breath.
 
2012-09-07 03:49:29 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Trends, how do they work?

/doom and gloom mongering won't get your boy elected, subby


trend is down.
2011 - 154k jobs/month (145k for first 8 months)
2012 - 138k jobs
 
2012-09-07 03:49:33 PM  

Citrate1007: A vast majority of long term unemployed are simply unemployable.


[citation needed]

WhyteRaven74: Ever heard of retirement?


that's not what that number means at all you ninny
 
2012-09-07 03:49:39 PM  

SlothB77: There are 243,566,000 Americans at least 16 years old; and not in the military, prison, mental hospital or a nursing home.

Of those, 88,921,000 are not working nor have looked for a job in the past four weeks. In other words, 37% of people capable of working don't even attempt to get a job. Another 12,544,000 are looking for work, but remain unemployed, which is 5% of the pool of people capable of working.

Of the pool of people capable of working, only 58% of them are actually working - 142,101,000 people.

Assuming a US population of 315,000,000 people, that is only 45% of the total population of the USA that works.

Obama's America


So no baby boomers have retired?
 
2012-09-07 03:49:54 PM  
img11.imageshack.us
While people lost their homes.
While families fell apart.
While businesses died.

While we begged for help from our "leaders."

Never forget, and never forgive.

/VOTE
 
2012-09-07 03:49:58 PM  
Hmmm...A lot more "B B But Bush!!!!"'s in this thread than normal...You guys are gettin lazy. Time to come up with some new talking points.
 
2012-09-07 03:50:04 PM  

JokerMattly: leviosaurus: MisterLoki: [i568.photobucket.com image 380x446]

People keep posting that as if it means Obama is a lock for re-election. If that's what you think it means, then you don't understand what it says. Those aren't poll numbers, they're odds. It's saying Romney has a little worse than a 1 in 4 chance of winning the election. Sure, Obama is in a better position, but that is a long, long way from certain victory. Would you play Russian Roulette with a four barrel gun? If you're an Obama supporter and that sounds like lousy odds to you, then you shouldn't be happy with these numbers.

In politics, a 77% percent chance for victory might as well be a landslide.
Similarly, if you get a poll back and its 60/40, you do not get excited because you're only 20 points behind your opponent. you don't say "Well, he's only got 60%!"

Anyhow, it's an aggregate of electoral math. Common sense says that Romney's losing his footholds and his paths to 270 - that's one of the reasons why Obama is up nearly 10% in the last week.


If you get a poll telling you that your opponent is leading by 20 points, Nate Silver will give your opponent a 100% chance of winning the election. He isn't doing that here. If his model is off by as little as 3 states, you're looking at President Romney.

Nobody's a bigger fan of Nate Silver than me. If I had to pick anyone's numbers to trust, they'd be his. But even he says there is too much uncertainty to be too confident in these numbers right now. Some of his assumptions have not played out - like a post convention bump for Romney - and he isn't certain if that means Romney is behind or if post-convention bumps are a thing of the past with the advent of the Internet Age. If that's the case, then Obama's number will drop like a rock when the polls come out next week. This election is anything but typical. He could adjust his model tomorrow and show Obama as behind.
 
2012-09-07 03:50:21 PM  

SlothB77: There are 243,566,000 Americans at least 16 years old; and not in the military, prison, mental hospital or a nursing home.

Of those, 88,921,000 are not working nor have looked for a job in the past four weeks. In other words, 37% of people capable of working don't even attempt to get a job. Another 12,544,000 are looking for work, but remain unemployed, which is 5% of the pool of people capable of working.

Of the pool of people capable of working, only 58% of them are actually working - 142,101,000 people.

Assuming a US population of 315,000,000 people, that is only 45% of the total population of the USA that works.

Obama's America


how about a link on those numbers you're using...
 
2012-09-07 03:50:27 PM  

BigJake: James!: I keep hearing the sky is falling, but I've had 3 recruiters call me in the last week.

Oh goody, another thread about data where we tell personal anecdotes as if they mean anything



All politics is personal.  I'll take my anecdotes and you take your various U numbers and we'll see who comes out ahead in November.
 
2012-09-07 03:50:54 PM  

leviosaurus: Would you play Russian Roulette with a four barrel gun?


cdn3.hark.com

GUNS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! 
 
2012-09-07 03:51:08 PM  

Swagulus: Hmmm...A lot more "B B But Bush!!!!"'s in this thread than normal...You guys are gettin lazy. Time to come up with some new talking points.


If the GOP didn't want us to complain about how the worst president in US history savaged the economy they shouldn't have elected him.
 
2012-09-07 03:51:28 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Now is as good a time as any to ask a question that bugs me about this metric: What the hell does it mean "given up looking for a job"??

What does that mean? What CAN it mean? Does it mean that people have accepted living homeless and broke is now their lot in life and that they no longer even seek employment? Does it mean they've just stopped collecting unemployment? That they've merely stopped using regular (i.e. government tracked) employment agencies? Or that when asked, they flippantly replied, "Nah, I've stopped even looking for work"? Or were previously the unemployed job-seekers being classed as "employed" as in "employed in seeking employment"?

It seems to me there are only two states of being: Either you are employed or you are not. And regardless of whether you are "looking" for a job or have "given up looking" and resigned yourself to eating scraps from the dumpster behind McDonalds, in both cases you are NOT EMPLOYED.

Is there some other, third state of being regarding jobs I'm unaware of? Or is this like how the budget was artificially lowered by not counting war costs, only in reverse: "We've decided that the unemployed job-seekers are now officially unemployed and no longer officially...unemployed"?


I guess there's the people who aren't legally eligible to work.
 
2012-09-07 03:51:51 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

That is utter bull pockey. The stimulous bill wa passed within the fist 2 years and actually worked.


It worked? Are you a farking retard?
 
2012-09-07 03:51:59 PM  

jst3p: sprawl15: jst3p: Cheesecake, with its lack of a top crust, is technically a pie. And cheesecake is greater than cherry pie.

The best cheesecake doesn't need a crust. Just a crumble.

/seriously, the trick to cheesecake is to rice the cream cheese


upgrade the exaust, body kits, nitrous, spoilers, speakers, lights?

[www.civicforumz.com image 400x300]


Seriously, though. This is a potato ricer:

img715.imageshack.us

When ricing cheesecake I prefer to get one of those wire strainers and just smash it through with a spoon:

img513.imageshack.us 

It makes the cheesecake amazingly light.
 
2012-09-07 03:52:25 PM  

unexplained bacon: SlothB77: There are 243,566,000 Americans at least 16 years old; and not in the military, prison, mental hospital or a nursing home.

Of those, 88,921,000 are not working nor have looked for a job in the past four weeks. In other words, 37% of people capable of working don't even attempt to get a job. Another 12,544,000 are looking for work, but remain unemployed, which is 5% of the pool of people capable of working.

Of the pool of people capable of working, only 58% of them are actually working - 142,101,000 people.

Assuming a US population of 315,000,000 people, that is only 45% of the total population of the USA that works.

Obama's America

how about a link on those numbers you're using...


Don't bother, they're ficticous.
 
2012-09-07 03:52:32 PM  

Gyrfalcon: What the hell does it mean "given up looking for a job"??


BTW the 386,000 number is not people who have given up looking for a job, it's people who have left the workforce, it can be because they retired, because they're going back to school and lots of other reasons.

BigJake: that's not what that number means at all you ninny


Yes it is. It measures the number of people leaving the workforce, not the number of people no longer looking for employment. One can't leave the workforce if one is not employed after all.
 
2012-09-07 03:52:35 PM  

TIKIMAN87: Are you a farking retard?


No, he isn't. He didn't defend Bush's job record.
 
2012-09-07 03:52:38 PM  

make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.


Fine.

Everything is FABULOUS, Obama has lead us all to his vision of a shining future. We only need reelect him, and we will feast on the fruits of his labor.

/can I go now?
 
2012-09-07 03:52:49 PM  

TIKIMAN87: All2morrowsparTs: TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

That is utter bull pockey. The stimulous bill wa passed within the fist 2 years and actually worked.

It worked? Are you a farking retard?


is the CBO?
 
2012-09-07 03:52:59 PM  

WhyteRaven74: If a company is making as much stuff as before it laid people off but doing it with fewer workers it's not exactly do anyone, including itself, any favors.


this is a joke, right

you're trying to pull our legs by imitating a complete know-nothing, right
 
2012-09-07 03:53:10 PM  

Swagulus: Hmmm...A lot more "B B But Bush!!!!"'s in this thread than normal...You guys are gettin lazy. Time to come up with some new talking points.


Alright. I want to hear Romney's plan to fix the economy, but he apparently won't tell me the details until he gets elected President.
 
2012-09-07 03:53:15 PM  

xsive: gameshowhost: xsive: I can has place blame on G0P obstruction?

No. That's not real, and it never happened. The GOP is the most helpful party of all time.

yes but what about the G0P?

/as clinton basically called them


Those guys are awesome. ._.
 
2012-09-07 03:53:21 PM  

CPennypacker: Swagulus: Hmmm...A lot more "B B But Bush!!!!"'s in this thread than normal...You guys are gettin lazy. Time to come up with some new talking points.

If the GOP didn't want us to complain about how the worst president in US history savaged the economy they shouldn't have elected him.


And they certainly shouldn't have nominated a candidate who's promising to do the exact same things Bush did, except Romney will do them twice as hard.
 
2012-09-07 03:53:43 PM  
Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? This guy isn't:
extras.mnginteractive.com
 
2012-09-07 03:53:51 PM  

Swagulus: Hmmm...A lot more "B B But Bush!!!!"'s in this thread than normal...You guys are gettin lazy. Time to come up with some new talking points.


Ya, I know you'd like GWB to just disappear from the history books. Can't blame you, after all, he was the worst President ever.
 
2012-09-07 03:54:18 PM  

James!: All politics is personal. I'll take my anecdotes and you take your various U numbers and we'll see who comes out ahead in November.


ohhhhhhhhhkay
 
2012-09-07 03:54:27 PM  

Nadie_AZ: make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.

Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?


Hot fresh pecan pie with vanilla ice cream!
 
2012-09-07 03:55:07 PM  

sprawl15: Seriously, though. This is a potato ricer:


hmmm, have to try that one
 
2012-09-07 03:55:21 PM  
Are you better off than you were 4 Years Ago?

images.zap2it.com

Damn you, Fartbongo!
 
2012-09-07 03:55:57 PM  
Hey look, Republicans are mad that Democrats are pointing out that Romney's platform is identical to Bush's, the worst president in American history. That they elected willingly.

Sucks when history is never on your side, ever.
 
2012-09-07 03:56:09 PM  

thurstonxhowell: leviosaurus: Would you play Russian Roulette with a four barrel gun?

[cdn3.hark.com image 320x240]

GUNS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!


erm... a four chamber revolver. That's what I actually said. The filter must've messed it up. Yeah, that's the ticket.
 
2012-09-07 03:56:16 PM  
It is still infinity greater than the jobs created by the GOP house.

Pretty sure 96,000 > ZER-OH!
 
2012-09-07 03:56:24 PM  

coeyagi: praymantis: CPennypacker: TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

FALSE

Hey I can do that too TRUE

Ok, facts.

Al Franken wasn't confirmed until May, June 2009? Something like that. Then Kennedy dies in September 2009? I may be off by a month or two for each. And then Scott Brown gets in Jan 2010. So.... you're looking at about 4-6 months of filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Again, FALSE.


And even then, not really, since their filibuster-proof majority included the Blue Dog Democrats from flyover country and Joe "I'm an 'independent' and totally not in the GOP's corner despite me running for their party's presidential nomination in 2008, oh and I want you to hamstring the health care reform bill or else I'm gonna side with the GOP and vote against cloture" Lieberman
 
2012-09-07 03:56:25 PM  

namatad: Nadie_AZ: make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.

Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?

sour cherry pie?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


cdn1.ticketsinventory.com

Disapproves
 
2012-09-07 03:57:32 PM  

WhyteRaven74: skullkrusher: so your plan is to blame the private sector for not doing stuff that will reduce their profitability?

Capital expenditures come with tax benefits, namely depreciation on equipment. Indeed for everything I mentioned there are tax benefits. Also, how is a company going to maintain profitability if its revenues don't grow? And funny the CEO's of times past had no problem lowering their profit margins for a while just to make sure they'd have higher ones later. Or even have them later.


what do you think has changed? Suddenly what happened in the past 4 or 5 years to make things different? Seems to me that logic dictates that the private sector would be hiring more people, putting money towards capex, etc if it behooved them to do so. If the demand is not there, they will not invest in new equipment or hires.

What we're likely seeing now with the recent productivity numbers and profits is that demand is strengthening. Companies that downsized at the height of the recession are seeing revenues growing with similar labor and cap expenditures. This cannot last forever and I think we will soon see an uptick in actual hiring in the next few Qs. That's not going to happen until it has to, however.
 
2012-09-07 03:57:37 PM  

BigJake: this is a joke, right


Nope. By having people fewer people do more work you're wearing out your employees faster also making growth in productivity harder to achieve. And then there's the fact there are fewer people with money to buy what you make. This used to be standard for every CEO, they understood that what might seem good on paper today could actually be bad tomorrow.
 
Displayed 50 of 384 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | 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