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.

(Slate)   The Bureau of Labor Statistics finds an extra 386,000 jobs under its seat cushions   (slate.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Bureau of Labor Statistics  
•       •       •

6452 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Sep 2012 at 9:20 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-09-27 04:16:24 PM  
awww, poor romney. i wonder how he'll spin this.
 
2012-09-27 04:27:22 PM  

FlashHarry: awww, poor romney. i wonder how he'll spin this.


I'm sure the derp squad is all ready with "The BLS is in the tank for Obama, and is atrtificially inflating the numbers"
 
2012-09-27 04:28:13 PM  
There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I'm sure if the BLS looks closely, they can also find that many more job seekers.

/anyone need a freelance engineer? EIP.
//yes, a real engineer, not a computer programmer
///although I could do that too if you're willing to pay
 
2012-09-27 05:07:53 PM  

Dinki: FlashHarry: awww, poor romney. i wonder how he'll spin this.

I'm sure the derp squad is all ready with "The BLS is in the tank for Obama, and is atrtificially inflating the numbers"



They'll be hoping everyone forgets they've been citing BLS numbers to support their arguments for months.
 
2012-09-27 05:49:34 PM  
FTFA:

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.


Once more, with feeling

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.


One. More. Time.

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.
 
2012-09-27 05:55:10 PM  

meat0918: FTFA:

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Once more, with feeling

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

One. More. Time.

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.


Which is more than can be said for Bush. Even after 8 years.
 
2012-09-27 06:01:23 PM  
More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Well that was the last metric. GDP, corporate profits, and now jobs, are all higher than 4 years ago.
 
2012-09-27 06:03:19 PM  

impaler: More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Well that was the last metric. GDP, corporate profits, and now jobs, are all higher than 4 years ago.


I guess hugram can update his wall of reality post.
 
2012-09-27 06:05:10 PM  

meat0918: More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.


This is hilarious - just in time for the debates too. What is Romney going to attack him on? This was his last line of real attack and the rug just got pulled out from under him.
 
2012-09-27 06:17:59 PM  

SnakeLee: This is hilarious - just in time for the debates too. What is Romney going to attack him on?


His only option is to adapt an alternate reality.

Where all the data keepers, pollsters, statisticians, scientists, and analysts are all elitists liberals.
 
2012-09-27 06:19:09 PM  
"how can Mitt Romney be losing with the economy doing so poorly?"

Because the Romney campaign has done everything they can to get voters to believe that no matter how bad things might be now, he and Ryan would be able to find innumerable ways to make it worse.
 
2012-09-27 06:43:14 PM  
Look, I have some idea of how the BLS works, and I have no idea how that's possible to find basically a month's worth of new unemployed people who were employed all along while losing 68000 government workers. They're government workers. You can actually count those pretty easy.
 
2012-09-27 06:47:22 PM  

GAT_00: Look, I have some idea of how the BLS works, and I have no idea how that's possible to find basically a month's worth of new unemployed people who were employed all along while losing 68000 government workers. They're government workers. You can actually count those pretty easy.


Government workers includes all levels, not just the federal government.

Plus, people enter numbers wrong in spreadsheets all the time.
 
2012-09-27 06:50:59 PM  
Anyone have a good article as to the details of this "rebenchmarking" and how often it is done?
 
2012-09-27 06:52:32 PM  

meat0918: GAT_00: Look, I have some idea of how the BLS works, and I have no idea how that's possible to find basically a month's worth of new unemployed people who were employed all along while losing 68000 government workers. They're government workers. You can actually count those pretty easy.

Government workers includes all levels, not just the federal government.


Yeah, state and local are included.

I think it's less of a "data entry" problem, though, as opposed to a calculation change, as would be implied by the term "rebenchmarking".

After all, that magic number that makes it into the papers is anything but a tally-mark count.
 
2012-09-27 07:14:51 PM  

meat0918: FTFA:

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Once more, with feeling

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

One. More. Time.

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.


Types nice, but that is not correct. Obama is down a million or so jobs. Not including the 359,000 that filed for unemployment this past week.
 
2012-09-27 07:30:33 PM  

impaler: More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Well that was the last metric. GDP, corporate profits, and now jobs, are all higher than 4 years ago.


You forgot gas prices.
 
2012-09-27 07:36:53 PM  

EnviroDude: meat0918: FTFA:

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Once more, with feeling

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

One. More. Time.

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Types nice, but that is not correct. Obama is down a million or so jobs. Not including the 359,000 that filed for unemployment this past week.


You heard it here first, folks, and from a known authority on these things. Clearly, there is no need for citation from such a respected source.
 
2012-09-27 07:53:56 PM  

meat0918: More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.


I think this bears repeating OVER AND OVER AND OVER
 
2012-09-27 07:56:54 PM  

EnviroDude: Types nice, but that is not correct. Obama is down a million or so jobs. Not including the 359,000 that filed for unemployment this past week.


Kindly justify this statement, thanks.

Also, now Obama is officially a Job Creator, how many jobs have the GOP created? President Clinton?

www.washingtonpost.com
 
2012-09-27 08:21:22 PM  

EnviroDude: Types nice, but that is not correct. Obama is down a million or so jobs. Not including the 359,000 that filed for unemployment this past week.


From Jan 20, 2009

research.stlouisfed.org
 
2012-09-27 09:22:48 PM  
*cough* BulLshiat *cough*
 
2012-09-27 09:28:14 PM  

bdub77: meat0918: More Americans are employed today than were employed when President Obama took office.

I think this bears repeating OVER AND OVER AND OVER


Slight change, for truthiness..
 
2012-09-27 09:29:28 PM  

bdub77: meat0918: More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

I think this bears repeating OVER AND OVER AND OVER

 
2012-09-27 09:30:14 PM  

FlashHarry: awww, poor romney. i wonder how he'll spin this.


"This is hard."
 
2012-09-27 09:33:15 PM  

nmrsnr: EnviroDude: Types nice, but that is not correct. Obama is down a million or so jobs. Not including the 359,000 that filed for unemployment this past week.

Kindly justify this statement, thanks.

Also, now Obama is officially a Job Creator, how many jobs have the GOP created? President Clinton?

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x404]



A picture of Bill Clinton!!!

And, may I remind you Conservatard, that Alex Baldwin and Diane Sawyer BOTH said they were excited by this election cycle so THERE!

What are you going to say now, RushLimbaughBot?

LOL - who needs a job when we all have free health care - LOL!
 
2012-09-27 09:34:06 PM  
Well someone has got to operate those fema death camps and death panels.
 
2012-09-27 09:42:29 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-27 09:44:01 PM  
surprise!!

I bet they find even more in October and right before the Election...

and then lose them again in December.
 
2012-09-27 09:44:38 PM  
So apparently the BLS is now run by this guy...
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-27 09:52:48 PM  
Obama's ahead. This is good news because me and my freeloader friends can't wait for our hand out that was stolen from job creators.

/I call them cash hoarders.
 
2012-09-27 09:55:53 PM  
OH MAN!!!! I hope i get to hear Bill Cunninham on the radio tomorrow. I gotta plan my day accordingly.
 
2012-09-27 10:00:41 PM  
So, for the butthurt crowd in here, you do know the BLS gets its data by asking your holy Job Creators, right? Their numbers are entirely created by surveys.
 
2012-09-27 10:01:18 PM  

brianbankerus: Obama's ahead. This is good news because me and my freeloader friends can't wait for our hand out that was stolen from job creators.

/I call them cash hoarders.


That's exactly what they are.

and without ready cash, Americans can't consume. Without consumers our economy grinds to a halt.

/They're not Job creators - they're Job Precluders.
 
2012-09-27 10:06:32 PM  

Yoyo: There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I'm sure if the BLS looks closely, they can also find that many more job seekers.

/anyone need a freelance engineer? EIP.
//yes, a real engineer, not a computer programmer
///although I could do that too if you're willing to pay


I don't but occasionally people I work with do, how do you feel about traveling to houston occasionally?
 
2012-09-27 10:08:22 PM  

rubi_con_man: brianbankerus: Obama's ahead. This is good news because me and my freeloader friends can't wait for our hand out that was stolen from job creators.

/I call them cash hoarders.

That's exactly what they are.

and without ready cash, Americans can't consume. Without consumers our economy grinds to a halt.

/They're not Job creators - they're Job Precluders.


Amen, brother!

And what the f*ck is up with Mom and Dad?

I mean, our band is going to be f*cking HUGE and all they do is keep up the chirp - "You need to get a job" - "you're room is a mess" - "Come on, Rubi, we're going to visit Aunt Gladys"

Seriously, why don't they understand that we have to be free to be able to fly?
 
2012-09-27 10:11:32 PM  

GAT_00: So, for the butthurt crowd in here, you do know the BLS gets its data by asking your holy Job Creators, right? Their numbers are entirely created by surveys.


Just like the presidential polls!!!

We need unskewedjobreports.com!
 
2012-09-27 10:11:55 PM  
if we all hire an illegal to help us clean the garage this weekend, think of the numbers boost then. plus all that extra money shot into the economy! sweet.
 
2012-09-27 10:13:12 PM  

FlashHarry: i wonder how he'll spin this.


He'll say something like: Obama was lying to you about the jobs numbers all year so he is lying to you now.
 
2012-09-27 10:13:41 PM  

GAT_00: So, for the butthurt crowd in here, you do know the BLS gets its data by asking your holy Job Creators, right? Their numbers are entirely created by surveys.


On a serious note, most of the economic numbers come from agencies employing serious statistical math geeks. They consider numbers more holy than any party identification.
 
2012-09-27 10:16:12 PM  
I'm surprised. I'd figure they'd wait till next month to gin up the numbers so he'd have a talking point.
 
2012-09-27 10:16:59 PM  
Just a few more programs to fund with money the government doesn't actually have and we'll be prosperous!
 
2012-09-27 10:18:14 PM  
Why not just add a zero to the end while they're at it?

Evita! Evita!
 
2012-09-27 10:19:10 PM  

Muta: FlashHarry: i wonder how he'll spin this.

He'll say something like: Obama was lying to you about the jobs numbers all year so he is lying to you now.


I'm gonna go ahead and deem you a wizard now to save us both time.
 
2012-09-27 10:21:35 PM  

Yoyo: /anyone need a freelance engineer? EIP.


But engineers use MATH, and math is the language of science, and science is of the Debbil! So, NO THANKS!

/seriously, good luck with finding a better gig. I've been out o' work for while and don't like it much.
 
2012-09-27 10:24:29 PM  

rubi_con_man: /I call them cash hoarders.

That's exactly what they are.

and without ready cash, Americans can't consume. Without consumers our economy grinds to a halt.

/They're not Job creators - they're Job Precluders.


And they're wondering why, as cash becomes more and more concentrated in the hands of those least likely to spend it, the economy struggles to chug along. It's asinine.

Trickle-down has been disproved. Can the R-tards let it the fark go already?
 
2012-09-27 10:26:02 PM  
I submitted this with the same headline earlier :/

go Obama. grats on the 7.9% unemployment despite all the GOP austerity measures
 
2012-09-27 10:26:07 PM  

Yoyo: There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I'm sure if the BLS looks closely, they can also find that many more job seekers.

/anyone need a freelance engineer? EIP.
//yes, a real engineer, not a computer programmer
///although I could do that too if you're willing to pay


Well, you never know. Amtrak might be hiring.
 
2012-09-27 10:26:33 PM  
ARE YOU BETTER OFF?!
 
2012-09-27 10:27:11 PM  

meat0918: FTFA:

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Once more, with feeling

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

One. More. Time.

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.


Thank god the population hasn't increased at all since he took office.
 
2012-09-27 10:29:38 PM  
data.bls.gov
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/
 
2012-09-27 10:31:25 PM  

MyRandomName: meat0918: FTFA:

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Once more, with feeling

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

One. More. Time.

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Thank god the population hasn't increased at all since he took office.


3 year olds need jobs too!
 
2012-09-27 10:31:56 PM  

Hobodeluxe: I submitted this with the same headline earlier :/

go Obama. grats on the 7.9% unemployment despite all the GOP austerity measures


What farking austerity? Trillion dollar deficits? Record spending levels? What farking austerity? Just because Krugman says that word while you are sucking his dick doesn't mean the US is even close to austerity measures.
 
2012-09-27 10:32:14 PM  
Well that's convenient. For a minute there I thought the Obama reputation sanitation crew had missed spot.

/Unemployment crisis narrowly averted
//I bet they are all healthcare jobs, right?
 
2012-09-27 10:32:53 PM  
Our economy does not require all able-bodied adults to be in the workforce to function well.

Sucks for those not in the work force, but changing figureheads won't alter that fact.
 
2012-09-27 10:33:06 PM  

Baryogenesis: MyRandomName: meat0918: FTFA:

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Once more, with feeling

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

One. More. Time.

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Thank god the population hasn't increased at all since he took office.

3 year olds need jobs too!


I was unaware the full population increase was just 3 year olds. I'm sure the bls can revise their participation rate numbers on that news.
 
2012-09-27 10:33:07 PM  

bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/


It's been trending downward since 2001, ergo it's all Fartbama's fault.
 
2012-09-27 10:34:12 PM  
This means Obama is automatically president and Sarah Pa... Oh wait
 
2012-09-27 10:35:22 PM  

MyRandomName: I was unaware the full population increase was just 3 year olds. I'm sure the bls can revise their participation rate numbers on that news.


303,202,683 to 314,159,265 from Jan 9 2008 to Aug 14 2012.

How many of that 10,956,582 are in the labor force?
 
2012-09-27 10:36:13 PM  

Mrtraveler01: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

It's been trending downward since 2001, ergo it's all Fartbama's fault.


It's not even worth arguing this. Any reasonable person can read that graph.
 
2012-09-27 10:39:20 PM  
Here is how you spin this:

Republican: THEY ARE COOKING THE BOOKS!
Democrat: See! the Obama recovery is working!

In other words, it depends who is in the WH, and which "side" you are on, as to how you
feel about this so called statistic. I'm about to the point of thinking BOTH political parties
could care less about what happens in flyover country. They've got theirs and that is all
they care about.
 
2012-09-27 10:40:38 PM  

MyRandomName: Hobodeluxe: I submitted this with the same headline earlier :/

go Obama. grats on the 7.9% unemployment despite all the GOP austerity measures

What farking austerity? Trillion dollar deficits? Record spending levels? What farking austerity? Just because Krugman says that word while you are sucking his dick doesn't mean the US is even close to austerity measures.


I was talking about the public sector jobs lost because of budget cuts. 600,000+ of them. and it would have been worse if not for the stimulus and the aid to states (mostly red states that get money from the blue states anyway)
but go ahead and ignore them.
 
2012-09-27 10:40:59 PM  

bestie1: Mrtraveler01: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

It's been trending downward since 2001, ergo it's all Fartbama's fault.

It's not even worth arguing this. Any reasonable person can read that graph.


I am reading that graph, the trend started going downward in 2001 when the baby boomers started retiring, the slope increased during the fallout from the bubble bursting in 2008 and now it's evened back out again and continues the same downward trend that it started under Bush.

Wait, are you telling me that the trend should be going upward? That's just stupid and shows how little you know about statistics and demographics.
 
2012-09-27 10:41:14 PM  

impaler: Well that was the last metric. GDP, corporate profits, and now jobs, are all higher than 4 years ago.


How much higher would those metrics be if the Prez hadn't been in a GOP stranglehold for most of that time? The stranglehold was purely so things wouldn't get better enough for the GOP to lose 2012 like a retarded kid playing chess. So now they lose anyway like a retarded kid playing Chutes and Ladders AND the country is stunted in its recovery from a GOP clusterfark! Had there been a GOP that took its 2008 loss with grace and did its duty to the nation, we could be so much further ahead by now...

And what really kills me is that a vibrant, dynamic economy of well-educated, healthy individuals can create more wealth for everybody than the mercenary and incendiary practices of 'conservatives' today. It's like the difference between parasitism and mutualism... uh oh, mutualism sounds like socialism... {dog whistle}
 
2012-09-27 10:41:15 PM  

Mrtraveler01: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

It's been trending downward since 2001, ergo it's all Fartbama's fault.


No need to make this political, you jackass. bestie1 simply posted a graph that showed that the employment situation is bleak, no matter how one wants to spin it. To deny this simple fact (which most people in this thread have done) is just idiocy in the highest order.
 
2012-09-27 10:43:11 PM  

bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/


So, Republicans are now arguing that smaller government is a bad thing? Make up yer gotdamn minds.
 
2012-09-27 10:43:13 PM  

Atomic Spunk: Mrtraveler01: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

It's been trending downward since 2001, ergo it's all Fartbama's fault.

No need to make this political, you jackass. bestie1 simply posted a graph that showed that the employment situation is bleak, no matter how one wants to spin it. To deny this simple fact (which most people in this thread have done) is just idiocy in the highest order.


maybe we should quit rewarding people like Romney that ship them overseas then?
 
2012-09-27 10:44:22 PM  

Atomic Spunk: Mrtraveler01: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

It's been trending downward since 2001, ergo it's all Fartbama's fault.

No need to make this political, you jackass. bestie1 simply posted a graph that showed that the employment situation is bleak, no matter how one wants to spin it. To deny this simple fact (which most people in this thread have done) is just idiocy in the highest order.


Sorry, it's just that when one usually posts that, they are insinuating that it's all Obama's fault.

But like I said, when you factor the fact that this trend pretty much started in 2001 and has been steadily going downward since, it's downright idiotic to think that a trend that started under Bush is all Obama's fault.
 
2012-09-27 10:48:25 PM  
Prior to 2000 the the increasing participation of women in the workforce pushed the numbers up:
www.bls.gov

You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.

data.bls.gov
 
2012-09-27 10:49:42 PM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

So, Republicans are now arguing that smaller government is a bad thing? Make up yer gotdamn minds.

What?
 
2012-09-27 10:50:30 PM  

propasaurus: You forgot gas prices.


Do you think a sitting president would let gas prices rise right before the election if he really had any control over them? No, of course not. Ergo, he doesn't have control over gas prices. The public might think he does (and food prices and housing prices etc.), and he could if he nationalized all of those things, but everybody would come unglued if he tried that.
 
2012-09-27 10:50:59 PM  

bestie1: Prior to 2000 the the increasing participation of women in the workforce pushed the numbers up:
[www.bls.gov image 401x238]

You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.

[data.bls.gov image 600x300]


If you think we're in the same nose dive position that we were in 2008-2009, then you're an idiot who doesn't understand the concept of slopes.

Enough said.
 
2012-09-27 10:54:48 PM  

Aquapope: Yoyo: /anyone need a freelance engineer? EIP.

But engineers use MATH, and math is the language of science, and science is of the Debbil! So, NO THANKS!

/seriously, good luck with finding a better gig. I've been out o' work for while and don't like it much.


I"M THE GOD DAMNDEVIL!

Link
 
2012-09-27 10:56:47 PM  
The president's ability to affect change in the economy is mostly symbolic. He requires the Legislative Branch to function in order to make any substainative change.
 
2012-09-27 10:56:53 PM  

Mrtraveler01: bestie1: Prior to 2000 the the increasing participation of women in the workforce pushed the numbers up:
[www.bls.gov image 401x238]

You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.

[data.bls.gov image 600x300]

If you think we're in the same nose dive position that we were in 2008-2009, then you're an idiot who doesn't understand the concept of slopes.

Enough said.

Wow. Your amazing. Can I have your autograph? I've never met someone from another planet before.
 
2012-09-27 10:59:17 PM  

bestie1: Prior to 2000 the the increasing participation of women in the workforce pushed the numbers up:


You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.


I think bestie1 may know what he's talking about. He keeps it simple and without finger-pointing. So unFarklike.
 
2012-09-27 11:00:18 PM  

Nadie_AZ: meat0918: FTFA:

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Once more, with feeling

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

One. More. Time.

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Which is more than can be said for Bush. Even after 8 years.


Doing exactly what? If by "employed" you mean re-fill the seasonal, agricultural, and other minimum wage or rehire jobs to fill the numbers, then you'd be correct. I don't see a lot of new $50k a year jobs within 100 miles of me, if any. I don't blame Bushbot or Nobama, but you guys inhale numbers like coke on a stripper's arse.
 
2012-09-27 11:01:19 PM  

Dinki: FlashHarry: awww, poor romney. i wonder how he'll spin this.

I'm sure the derp squad is all ready with "The BLS is in the tank for Obama, and is atrtificially inflating the numbers"


And that's the most amusing thing - they think that the perception of official pronouncements of how things are drive people's election choices more than the actuality of the economy.
 
2012-09-27 11:02:24 PM  

bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/


But the stimulus is finally working! B-b-but Bush! Romney is worse! Excuse!
 
2012-09-27 11:02:38 PM  
Bullshiat.

Consumer confidence is in the basement for a reason. This is as valid as the embassy being attacked because of a video... election month bullshiat.
 
2012-09-27 11:02:48 PM  

bestie1: Mrtraveler01: bestie1: Prior to 2000 the the increasing participation of women in the workforce pushed the numbers up:
[www.bls.gov image 401x238]

You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.

[data.bls.gov image 600x300]

If you think we're in the same nose dive position that we were in 2008-2009, then you're an idiot who doesn't understand the concept of slopes.

Enough said.
Wow. Your amazing. Can I have your autograph? I've never met someone from another planet before.


So explain to me why a trend that started in 2001 is Obama's fault. Explain to me how that even though the line did take a nosedive in 2008-2009 but has leveled off since mid 2011 and into 2012, that the numbers are still in your eyes "taking a nose dive".

Do you really expect the trend to go upwards even as more and more baby boomers retire?

/Farking statistics, how do they work
 
2012-09-27 11:03:59 PM  

Deftoons: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

But the stimulus is finally working! B-b-but Bush! Romney is worse! Excuse!


You expect the trend to go upward too even though it hasn't since 2001?
 
2012-09-27 11:15:39 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Deftoons: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

But the stimulus is finally working! B-b-but Bush! Romney is worse! Excuse!

You expect the trend to go upward too even though it hasn't since 2001?


I'd say an economy under a good President would show significant signs in recovery in both employment percentages as well as labor participation after four years - but let's not kid ourselves here, it's not just those numbers. They have to be jobs that are not dependent on government subsidies and programs; because it's otherwise not a sound recovery (that would be based off of true supply and demand), but a false one based on corrupt political management.
 
2012-09-27 11:23:29 PM  

Nadie_AZ: meat0918: FTFA:

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Once more, with feeling

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

One. More. Time.

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Which is more than can be said for Bush. Even after 8 years.


I think that's just counting the private sector jobs though. Bush added a lot more government jobs b/c of TSA, and probably enlistment into the military.
 
2012-09-27 11:23:54 PM  

ph0rk: MyRandomName: I was unaware the full population increase was just 3 year olds. I'm sure the bls can revise their participation rate numbers on that news.

303,202,683 to 314,159,265 from Jan 9 2008 to Aug 14 2012.

How many of that 10,956,582 are in the labor force?


We want 2009, but we could probably guess 7-8 million. The more relevant data would be people entering the labor market vs. people leaving.
Of course, the real point is to laugh at trolls like random who think Obama should have magically lowered the unemployment rate to 3% and that anything less means Obama is the worst president ever!!1!
 
2012-09-27 11:25:04 PM  
but the Gov can't find the $7 Trillion the fed "lost"... or was that the pentagon...

I lost track
 
2012-09-27 11:29:15 PM  

bestie1: You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.


boomers started in 45. People start retiring in their 60s...

What's 1945 + 60 again?

Fuking retard.
 
2012-09-27 11:29:27 PM  

vegasj: but the Gov can't find the $7 Trillion the fed "lost"... or was that the pentagon...

I lost track


It might be in that pallet of money we lost in Iraq.
 
2012-09-27 11:32:10 PM  

impaler: bestie1: You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.

boomers started in 45. People start retiring in their 60s...

What's 1945 + 60 again?

Fuking retard.


Nope, clearly it's Obama's fault that people are retiring in their 60's.
 
2012-09-27 11:35:37 PM  

Deftoons: I'd say an economy under a good President would show significant signs in recovery in both employment percentages as well as labor participation after four years


GDP and corporate profits are at record highs.

Both graphs 1 year before Obama took office.
research.stlouisfed.org

research.stlouisfed.org
 
2012-09-27 11:40:15 PM  

impaler: Deftoons: I'd say an economy under a good President would show significant signs in recovery in both employment percentages as well as labor participation after four years

GDP and corporate profits are at record highs.

Both graphs 1 year before Obama took office.
[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]


So when he wins, is he going to pull back on that $14 TRILLION debt his guys OK'd? In two years or 30? Or never?
 
2012-09-27 11:45:11 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: impaler: Deftoons: I'd say an economy under a good President would show significant signs in recovery in both employment percentages as well as labor participation after four years

GDP and corporate profits are at record highs.

Both graphs 1 year before Obama took office.
[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

So when he wins, is he going to pull back on that $14 TRILLION debt his guys OK'd? In two years or 30? Or never?


It's funny that you ask this question while I just saw Romney on TV in VA railing AGAINST budget cuts in Defense.

That's right, Romney is against cuts in government spending...as long as they're in defense.

So no, I don't take the GOP seriously when it talk about wanting to balance the budget. Thanks for asking.
 
2012-09-27 11:46:02 PM  
Mrtraveler01: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

It's been trending downward since 2001, ergo it's all Fartbama's fault.

No need to make this political, you jackass. bestie1 simply posted a graph that showed that the employment situation is bleak


He showed no data showing a bleak employment situation.

Also:

Deftoons: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

But the stimulus is finally working! B-b-but Bush! Romney is worse! Excuse!


If you're ignorant of the political statement he was making, don't insult those of us that aren't
 
2012-09-27 11:48:43 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: So when he wins, is he going to pull back on that $14 TRILLION debt his guys OK'd?


Jesus you're an ignorant moron.

First off, lying sack of shat, the debt increased 6 trillion, and that's mostly from unchanged Bush policies.

bridgeproject.com
 
2012-09-27 11:55:57 PM  

ph0rk: ARE YOU BETTER OFF?!


Fark yeah. Who doesn't remember how shatty it was 4 years ago?

List of company failures.

growlersoftware.com
 
2012-09-27 11:59:07 PM  

Deftoons: I'd say an economy under a good President would show significant signs in recovery in both employment percentages as well as labor participation after four years


I just reread this. Jesus you're an idiot. Labor participation rates have almost nothing to do with the economy. It's about retired and 'too young to work' demographics.
 
2012-09-28 12:04:12 AM  

Atomic Spunk: bestie1 simply posted a graph that showed that the employment situation is bleak,


It's coming to me now. Republican scum post "labor participation rates" decreasing, because people will misinterpret it to think it means that the economy is worsening, even though it just means an aging population is retiring.

Take note everyone.
 
2012-09-28 12:08:59 AM  

impaler: fanbladesaresharp: So when he wins, is he going to pull back on that $14 TRILLION debt his guys OK'd?
Jesus you're an ignorant moron.
First off, lying sack of shat, the debt increased 6 trillion, and that's mostly from unchanged Bush policies.


Look at the numbers: GOP presidents tend to increase the debt and deficit faster than Dems do. This is not partisan, it's empirical. But the common truthyism is that Dems are reckless financially. Look at how much Reagan added to the debt (but he broke the Soviets, you'll say... they were doomed regardless). Look at how much GeoW increased the debt, when you count the wars, which he didn't do because that would make him look bad. Who was the last president with a balanced budget? Several years in a row?

Most of that 14 trillion is on Bush. Deny it with support and numbers, or shut up.
 
2012-09-28 12:11:41 AM  

Mrtraveler01: fanbladesaresharp: impaler: Deftoons: I'd say an economy under a good President would show significant signs in recovery in both employment percentages as well as labor participation after four years

GDP and corporate profits are at record highs.

Both graphs 1 year before Obama took office.
[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

So when he wins, is he going to pull back on that $14 TRILLION debt his guys OK'd? In two years or 30? Or never?

It's funny that you ask this question while I just saw Romney on TV in VA railing AGAINST budget cuts in Defense.

That's right, Romney is against cuts in government spending...as long as they're in defense.

So no, I don't take the GOP seriously when it talk about wanting to balance the budget. Thanks for asking.


OH come on now. Clinton closed bases all over the place. Have you noticed any military presence in or around San Francisco since 1994 among other places? Cutting back on defense spending nowadays without an active war to pay the soldiers and contractors (and their families and the money they spend later in the private sector) is like peeling the last peel off a banana and call it a savings. Sometimes I think O-man just borrowed from Clintons playbook and Romney, well...fark....he's saying what this week?
 
2012-09-28 12:19:04 AM  

fanbladesaresharp: OH come on now. Clinton Bush I closed bases all over the place. Have you noticed any military presence in or around San Francisco since 1994 among other places? Cutting back on defense spending nowadays without an active war to pay the soldiers and contractors


The early 90s defense cuts were under Bush I. They were the right thing to do. we were no longer fighting a cold war.

The drawn out nature of the cuts means some took effect in Clinton's presidency, but Clinton doesn't get credit for that smart policy.
 
2012-09-28 12:31:10 AM  

p51d007:
Republican: THEY ARE COOKING THE BOOKS! i.e. completely ignores data
Democrat: See! the Obama recovery is working! i.e. accepts data

In other words, it depends who is in the WH, and which "side" you are on, as to how you
feel about this so called statistic. I'm about to the point of thinking BOTH political parties
could care less about what happens in flyover country. They've got theirs and that is all
they care about.


Bolded parts illustrate your "both sides are bad" ignorance.
 
2012-09-28 12:38:23 AM  

GAT_00: Look, I have some idea of how the BLS works, and I have no idea how that's possible to find basically a month's worth of new unemployed people who were employed all along while losing 68000 government workers. They're government workers. You can actually count those pretty easy.


You could, assuming the entire government from the federal level down to local school districts and police departments, is a well organized entity within which all departments readily cooperate and efficiently share information.
 
2012-09-28 12:48:28 AM  

impaler: fanbladesaresharp: OH come on now. Clinton Bush I closed bases all over the place. Have you noticed any military presence in or around San Francisco since 1994 among other places? Cutting back on defense spending nowadays without an active war to pay the soldiers and contractors

The early 90s defense cuts were under Bush I. They were the right thing to do. we were no longer fighting a cold war.

The drawn out nature of the cuts means some took effect in Clinton's presidency, but Clinton doesn't get credit for that smart policy.


Hm. Good recollection. A point is, with the drastic cutbacks in military spending (sans troops on the ground) where the hell is the money, and why is the debt ceiling necessary to be so high...again....again?
 
2012-09-28 12:52:24 AM  

Yoyo: There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I'm sure if the BLS looks closely, they can also find that many more job seekers.

/anyone need a freelance engineer? EIP.
//yes, a real engineer, not a computer programmer
///although I could do that too if you're willing to pay


So you went to engineering school? Or was it one of those Army vocational programs?
 
2012-09-28 12:57:35 AM  
I look at the GDP numbers and Corp profits and I have to wonder if the current rate of inflation is calculated in or if this is going off 'a dollar in 2000 is worth the same as a dollar in 2012'. Do people just look at larger numbers and go 'Ohh it's higher so it must be better'? Or did I miss the inflation calculation?
 
2012-09-28 01:01:04 AM  
I think I'll just pull some numbers out of my ash to make myself look gooderer.
 
2012-09-28 01:19:03 AM  

fanbladesaresharp: Hm. Good recollection. A point is, with the drastic cutbacks in military spending (sans troops on the ground) where the hell is the money, and why is the debt ceiling necessary to be so high...again....again?


It will make you feel worse to know the debt ceiling doesn't stop congress from spending - at all.

It just stop the treasury from issuing new debt to pay for their spending.

So if the debt ceiling is reached, the executive branch gets to decide which spending congress dictated to be spent, gets spent.
 
2012-09-28 01:20:10 AM  
I love how the "President" can or can't create jobs, make fuel prices, fix the Stock Market, etc.
 
2012-09-28 01:35:06 AM  

bestie1: Prior to 2000 the the increasing participation of women in the workforce pushed the numbers up:


You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.


Anyone that posts a percentage graph that doesn't go from 0 to 100 is a piece of shiat liar. But keep posting; all this conservative butthurt is so awesome.
 
2012-09-28 01:43:15 AM  

GORDON: Bullshiat.

Consumer confidence is in the basement for a reason. This is as valid as the embassy being attacked because of a video... election month bullshiat.


The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index, which had declined in August, improved in September. The Index now stands at 70.3 (1985=100), up from 61.3 in August. The Expectations Index increased to 83.7 from 71.1. The Present Situation Index rose to 50.2 from 46.5 last month. 

The arguments I have been hearing for a while was that consumer confidence was unreasonably high given the labor market numbers being put out by BLS. This revision explains that and brings it in line with other predictors of consumer confidence.
 
2012-09-28 02:00:13 AM  
Oh ya, post 2008 looks just like pre 2008.

i700.photobucket.com 
I think Obama has every right to be proud of the 8% unemployment rate. If those millions of workers had not given up hope, it would be much worse.
 
2012-09-28 02:51:49 AM  

fanbladesaresharp: So when he wins, is he going to pull back on that $14 TRILLION debt his guys OK'd? In two years or 30? Or never?


Are you really accusing Obama of creating the entire $14 trillion debt?
*facepalm*

First of all, as the old adage goes, you have to spend money to make money.
But even his stimulus package, his most expensive piece of legislation, was less than 1 trillion. Bush's rich-person tax cuts alone were more than twice as expensive. Then, when Obama tried to peel back the tax cuts to help pay for the recovery, Republicans insisted he keep them as a condition of passing other legislation. And you have the gall to accuse him of being fiscally irresponsible??

*Sigh. There is truly nothing that people's myopic partisanship can't make them invent, ignore, or lie about.
 
2012-09-28 03:38:46 AM  

impaler: Atomic Spunk: bestie1 simply posted a graph that showed that the employment situation is bleak,

It's coming to me now. Republican scum post "labor participation rates" decreasing, because people will misinterpret it to think it means that the economy is worsening, even though it just means an aging population is retiring.

Take note everyone.


New jobs aren't being created fast enough to absorb new people entering the job market (about 100,000/month) as well as those people who lost jobs. Also not being reported enough are the numbers of people who are underemployed. The thing I find the most disconcerting about the job situation is this: I am accustomed to the government using "massaged" numbers to paint a certain picture. However, they have been unable to massage any employment figure enough to make the numbers look halfway decent. It's that bad.

I honestly think Obama is a good man but he is unable to get things done. The fault lies with both Obama and the Republican party. I'm going to vote for Obama for 1 reason: if he's elected, gold prices will go supernova. Republicans will stonewall him. Budget deficits will continue, and even increase. Bernanke (or someone like-minded) will be chief of the Fed. The economy will continue to struggle. We will continue to print money with QE to infinity, debasing our dollar. Gold will have no choice but to skyrocket in the face of a falling dollar. This formula has been extremely good to me over the last few years. As long as other countries continue to look for forex reserve alternatives to the dollar, this trend will continue.

Impaler, if I'm not mistaken, you've been one of the people I see talking down gold whenever the subject comes up in the business tab. You've been dead wrong about gold for the last few years. Now you have a choice - be pigheaded and watch opportunity slip away or swallow your pride, buy gold and make some serious money. Or you can make a Glenn Beck joke to show how little you know about what drives the price of gold, like you've been doing for the last few years.
 
2012-09-28 04:14:15 AM  
"More jobs" doesn't necessarily mean an improvement... For instance, if 10 guys with decent-paying jobs and decent benefits find themselves unemployed, and then a year later those 10 guys plus 1 additional guy have crappy minimum wage jobs with crappy benefits, that might not really be a good thing. "Full-time employment" is a very broad term.
 
2012-09-28 04:46:54 AM  

snark puppet: I think Obama has every right to be proud of the 8% unemployment rate. If those millions of workers had not given up hope, it would be much worse.


The job participation rate is also impacted by retirees. Let's see here, loads of baby boomers are retiring now.

This was not unexpected, including the huge increase in healthcare costs. This has been predicted for decades.

/baby boomer
//just retired myself
 
2012-09-28 05:02:49 AM  
Right before the election? you jest!

Dont worry, they will adjust the numbers back down after the election.
 
2012-09-28 05:06:48 AM  

Atomic Spunk: Mrtraveler01: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

It's been trending downward since 2001, ergo it's all Fartbama's fault.

No need to make this political, you jackass. bestie1 simply posted a graph that showed that the employment situation is bleak, no matter how one wants to spin it. To deny this simple fact (which most people in this thread have done) is just idiocy in the highest order.


You do realize that the "civilian workforce participation rate" means everybody over the age of 16 that have jobs right? It does not adjust for things like AN ENTIRE GENERATION ENTERING RETIREMENT? The workforce participation rate going down is a good thing. But you wouldn't know, what with a 6 year old's ability to comprehend such things.
 
2012-09-28 05:11:29 AM  

bestie1: Prior to 2000 the the increasing participation of women in the workforce pushed the numbers up:
[www.bls.gov image 401x238]

You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.

[data.bls.gov image 600x300]


Yes, because it is perfectly natural for the workforce participation rate to drop when a significant part of the population starts retiring. It's going to continue to nosedive for awhile, but you'll notice that the important number to look at, the unemployment rate, starts going down too. But you don't care about facts or nuances to the economy that do anything but make the black man you're so scared of look bad.
 
2012-09-28 06:02:26 AM  
4.5 million people were baby boomers and they were kidnapped by evil republican fairies and forced to produce anti-Obama propaganda so the point is moot. Oh and the chart doesn't go from 0-100. The missing white space is filled with unicorn farts that explain why the evil BLS has it out for Obama.
 
2012-09-28 06:03:27 AM  

bestie1: Prior to 2000 the the increasing participation of women in the workforce pushed the numbers up:
[www.bls.gov image 401x238]

You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.

[data.bls.gov image 600x300]


Graphs do better when you explain what the heck you are talking about. WHAT numbers got pushed up?

Also, why do your graphs have data from 2050? Did I get drunk with Rip and sleep for 50 years again?
 
2012-09-28 06:20:23 AM  

nmrsnr: EnviroDude: Types nice, but that is not correct. Obama is down a million or so jobs. Not including the 359,000 that filed for unemployment this past week.

Kindly justify this statement, thanks.

Also, now Obama is officially a Job Creator, how many jobs have the GOP created? President Clinton?

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x404]


How many of those jobs have nothing to do with either party? 10,000 baby boomers turn 65 every day, and have been doing so since January 2011.
 
2012-09-28 06:33:41 AM  
By the way: just because the birth rate was higher in 1945 it doesn't mean the number of births is more than 16 years ago. See there's this thing called critical thinking and this other thing called math. Yeah ... sigh.
2,858,000 people born in 1945
3,899,000 people born in 1996
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html

The civilian workforce is measured over the age of 16.

Do you need more explanation? Ok I see: 1996 + 16 = 2012. So more people were born in 1996 than were born in 1945, 1946 or 1947. In fact all the years of the baby boom had the same number or less people born than are born now. So even though the boomers are retiring there are just as many or more people eligible to enter the workforce.

As far as charts going to 2050. All my sources are there are BLS and they included these things called "projections". Ask an adult to explain that to you. I would but I need to go to sleep.
 
2012-09-28 06:45:41 AM  
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Look! A flock of sheeple.
 
2012-09-28 06:52:03 AM  

impaler: fanbladesaresharp: OH come on now. Clinton Bush I closed bases all over the place. Have you noticed any military presence in or around San Francisco since 1994 among other places? Cutting back on defense spending nowadays without an active war to pay the soldiers and contractors

The early 90s defense cuts were under Bush I. They were the right thing to do. we were no longer fighting a cold war.

The drawn out nature of the cuts means some took effect in Clinton's presidency, but Clinton doesn't get credit for that smart policy.


Most of those cuts came as recommended by Bush the elder's Secertary of Defense: Dick Cheney. Of course he turned right around and said the very defense cuts he initiated made the US weak and were all Clinton's fault. Farking dick.
 
2012-09-28 06:52:39 AM  
It's even worse because women boomers are much less likely to be in the workforce. So the number of retiring boomers is much less than the number of people currently eligible to enter it.
 
2012-09-28 08:56:25 AM  

bestie1: By the way: just because the birth rate was higher in 1945 it doesn't mean the number of births is more than 16 years ago. See there's this thing called critical thinking and this other thing called math. Yeah ... sigh.
2,858,000 people born in 1945
3,899,000 people born in 1996
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html

The civilian workforce is measured over the age of 16.

Do you need more explanation? Ok I see: 1996 + 16 = 2012. So more people were born in 1996 than were born in 1945, 1946 or 1947. In fact all the years of the baby boom had the same number or less people born than are born now. So even though the boomers are retiring there are just as many or more people eligible to enter the workforce.

As far as charts going to 2050. All my sources are there are BLS and they included these things called "projections". Ask an adult to explain that to you. I would but I need to go to sleep.


Why hasn't anyone posted a graph showing a spike in retirements that are on par with the drop in participation?

Rather odd too considering for the past few years people have been delaying retirement due to the economy.
 
2012-09-28 09:22:41 AM  

Atomic Spunk: New jobs aren't being created fast enough to absorb new people entering the job market (about 100,000/month) as well as those people who lost jobs. Also not being reported enough are the numbers of people who are underemployed.


You mean 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.)

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
U3 and U6 say the same thing, they just have a different scale. So when someone states U6 (when everyone is used to U3's smaller scale), they're trying to mislead
 
2012-09-28 09:23:02 AM  

Mrbogey: bestie1: By the way: just because the birth rate was higher in 1945 it doesn't mean the number of births is more than 16 years ago. See there's this thing called critical thinking and this other thing called math. Yeah ... sigh.
2,858,000 people born in 1945
3,899,000 people born in 1996
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html

The civilian workforce is measured over the age of 16.

Do you need more explanation? Ok I see: 1996 + 16 = 2012. So more people were born in 1996 than were born in 1945, 1946 or 1947. In fact all the years of the baby boom had the same number or less people born than are born now. So even though the boomers are retiring there are just as many or more people eligible to enter the workforce.

As far as charts going to 2050. All my sources are there are BLS and they included these things called "projections". Ask an adult to explain that to you. I would but I need to go to sleep.

Why hasn't anyone posted a graph showing a spike in retirements that are on par with the drop in participation?

Rather odd too considering for the past few years people have been delaying retirement due to the economy.


I don't have a chart but in January 2009 there were 41,805,492 people collecting social security benefits. In September of 2012 there were 44,578,698: an increase of 2,773,206.

Source: Social Security Online
 
2012-09-28 11:01:28 AM  
So are they just making up these numbers?
 
2012-09-28 11:53:05 AM  
Republicans: We're starving, we need food!
Obama: Here's some food.
Republicans: This food isn't good enough!!

Some people, no matter what you do, will never be happy or satisfied.
 
2012-09-28 12:00:22 PM  

bestie1: Do you need more explanation? Ok I see: 1996 + 16 = 2012. So more people were born in 1996 than were born in 1945, 1946 or 1947. In fact all the years of the baby boom had the same number or less people born than are born now. So even though the boomers are retiring there are just as many or more people eligible to enter the workforce.

As far as charts going to 2050. All my sources are there are BLS and they included these things called "projections". Ask an adult to explain that to you. I would but I need to go to sleep.


The problem with the baby boom was there was a huge swell in the birth rate and it was followed by a huge dip in the birth rate right after. The way social security works is that the next people help pay into the system for the people before them. When the baby boomers retire, the next two generations aren't as big as they are, so it creates a problem where they have a harder time paying for the bigger population group. The populations of today were increasing more steadily, so that problem isn't going to happen again because it's all relatively even. The actual number of people born is irrelevant, it's the number of people relative to the next generations.
 
2012-09-28 01:06:27 PM  
Turn off the tap of H-1B's and numbers will look even better.
 
2012-09-28 01:33:38 PM  

Mrbogey: Why hasn't anyone posted a graph showing a spike in retirements that are on par with the drop in participation?

Rather odd too considering for the past few years people have been delaying retirement due to the economy.


growlersoftware.com
 
2012-09-28 01:40:02 PM  

impaler: Deftoons: I'd say an economy under a good President would show significant signs in recovery in both employment percentages as well as labor participation after four years

I just reread this. Jesus you're an idiot. Labor participation rates have almost nothing to do with the economy. It's about retired and 'too young to work' demographics.


An idiot claims to have re-read my post, but cherry-picks out the rest of my post which, you know, illustrates what you just said.

Does your moniker relate to you impaling your head in a computer screen and think that's learning? Try to figure out how to read before you claim you re-read things.
 
2012-09-28 01:42:51 PM  

Mrtraveler01: fanbladesaresharp: impaler: Deftoons: I'd say an economy under a good President would show significant signs in recovery in both employment percentages as well as labor participation after four years

GDP and corporate profits are at record highs.

Both graphs 1 year before Obama took office.
[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

So when he wins, is he going to pull back on that $14 TRILLION debt his guys OK'd? In two years or 30? Or never?

It's funny that you ask this question while I just saw Romney on TV in VA railing AGAINST budget cuts in Defense.

That's right, Romney is against cuts in government spending...as long as they're in defense.

So no, I don't take the GOP seriously when it talk about wanting to balance the budget. Thanks for asking.


Romney isn't even against non-military government spending either, it's the same ruse Republicans do all the time. I don't take most of the GOP seriously about balancing the budget, but I sure as hell do not take seriously if Democrats on the subject either; they often result to borrowing from other agencies and shift numbers around to make their picture rosier than what it actually is. Politicians mislead. It's not party-specific.
 
2012-09-28 01:45:07 PM  

impaler: Deftoons: I'd say an economy under a good President would show significant signs in recovery in both employment percentages as well as labor participation after four years

GDP and corporate profits are at record highs.

Both graphs 1 year before Obama took office.
[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]


So waitasecond here, you say labor participation means nothing about the economy's status, but corporate profits do? Is this what you're saying?
 
2012-09-28 01:45:14 PM  

loonatic112358:
I don't but occasionally people I work with do, how do you feel about traveling to houston occasionally?


I'm cool w/ H-Town and with commuting. I could move there (semi-permanently).


Aquapope: Yoyo: /anyone need a freelance engineer? EIP.

But engineers use MATH, and math is the language of science, and science is of the Debbil! So, NO THANKS!

/seriously, good luck with finding a better gig. I've been out o' work for while and don't like it much.


I think you have that wrong. We learn math. But when it comes to actual engineering, I'm more of a cocktail-napkin-sketch kind of guy. I just use Excel because I like the way it gives every word its own little box. Don't let the secret out, or all the mouth breathers will want to be engineers.
 
2012-09-28 01:53:33 PM  

Deftoons: So waitasecond here, you say labor participation means nothing about the economy's status, but corporate profits do? Is this what you're saying?


Labor participation rates are about demographics. As more people retire, labor participation rates fall.

Corporate profits are certainly tied to the economy.

So yeah. That's what I'm saying.
 
2012-09-28 03:20:45 PM  

Yoyo: Aquapope: Yoyo: /anyone need a freelance engineer? EIP.

But engineers use MATH, and math is the language of science, and science is of the Debbil! So, NO THANKS!

/seriously, good luck with finding a better gig. I've been out o' work for while and don't like it much.

I think you have that wrong. We learn math. But when it comes to actual engineering, I'm more of a cocktail-napkin-sketch kind of guy. I just use Excel because I like the way it gives every word its own little box. Don't let the secret out, or all the mouth breathers will want to be engineers.


I like the way you think! I use Powerpoint for graphic design and Word for layout. Sometimes I use Access, but mostly because it puts EVERYTHING in it's own little box, with little boxes of attributes and formulas and other fun stuff. Besides, if it's on a napkin, it's either a great idea or a number I should call when I sober up. Amirite?!!
 
2012-09-28 03:28:29 PM  

Yoyo: There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.


QFT

Are these the same people who were hiring census takers on part-time contracts then laying them off and rehiring them so that their entire part-time staff was counted as new jobs created each month?
 
2012-09-28 04:53:12 PM  

bestie1: So even though the boomers are retiring there are just as many or more people eligible to enter the workforce.


But, why would anyone want to work when they can have the government pay their way?
 
2012-09-28 04:53:49 PM  
I'm reading all the right-wing denials that things are actually getting better in Luke Skywalker's whiny voice: "That's not true! That's impossible!"
 
2012-09-28 05:02:09 PM  
I don't think anyone has actually posted the actual causes of the upward revision. It's much less insidious than a lot of the idiots in here seem to think.

Link

No, companies didn't go on a previously undetected hiring spree. The Labor Department just got access to better data. When the government releases its monthly payroll figures, it bases the numbers on a survey of some 160,000 employers across the country. Once a year, the government revises the figures based on tax records, providing a more accurate - but much less timely - count.

The revisions are big compared to the month-to-month payroll changes, but spread over a full year, they aren't particularly dramatic. They suggest that between April 2011 and March 2012, the economy added about 32,000 more jobs per month than previously believed - enough to make some bad months look slightly less bad, and some good months look even better, but not enough to represent a dramatic change. All told, the jobs added by the revision represent three tenths of one percent of the total working population, exactly the size of the average annual revision over the past 10 years.


From another article:

Each year, the government recalibrates its employment survey to match actual employment data from quarterly tax reports filed by employers. The exercise captures the creation of new businesses and also when business shut down, economists said. The final benchmark revision will show up in the data when the January 2013 figures are reported in early February.
 
2012-09-30 01:02:40 AM  

mak3_7up_y0urs: I don't think anyone has actually posted the actual causes of the upward revision. It's much less insidious than a lot of the idiots in here seem to think.

[snip interesting stuff]

Well, that was very informative! Thanks!
 
2012-09-30 01:14:28 AM  

iq_in_binary: black man


Black Man! Where? Whar Blak man? Help!
 
2012-09-30 01:37:57 AM  

Linkster: I love how the "President" can or can't create jobs, make fuel prices, fix the Stock Market, etc.


I know! Do you think a president running for his second term would not drop gas and food prices, create 200k jobs per month and double the Dow if that was in his power. OK, the Dow is doing pretty good... which should undercut some RMoney support, but won't.;

God, I'm going to lose my braims and drool like a chihuahua on Xanax in about 5 weeks.
 
Displayed 146 of 146 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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