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 147
    More: Spiffy, Bureau of Labor Statistics  
•       •       •

6428 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Sep 2012 at 9:20 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
2012-09-28 06:19:58 PM  

snark puppet: Oh ya, post 2008 looks just like pre 2008.

[i700.photobucket.com image 600x300] 
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.


Why is it that graph's left axis isn't labelled? For all we know that number means "number of acts of piracy in international waters". Howsabout a source with labelled axes?
 
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 47 of 147 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report