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.

(Hot Air)   You know how unemployment dipped to 7.8%. There's just one problem with that number. Hint: Don't use fuzzy math and People who give up looking for a job and leave unemployment is not the same as people getting jobs   (hotair.com) divider line 594
    More: Followup, CNBC, Chris Cuomo, warehousing, bright spot, Bureau of Labor Statistics  
•       •       •

9111 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Oct 2012 at 3:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-05 12:26:58 PM

InspectorZero: If you all really believe unemployment is at 7.8%, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.


No it could be. You have to remember that Baby Boomers are falling off like flies. They are gone and they are not looking for jobs! That could also account for the record numbers of Social Security disability claims. I know a few that are milking the system for a few months so they can make it to full retirement and collect their full check. I know I know anecdotal evidence but it is happening but I cant say what percentage of new cases fall into this category.
All in all I don't think the President has the ability to work the numbers like people are saying. It gives him/government far too much credit.
 
2012-10-05 12:30:31 PM

downstairs: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: downstairs: I'm saying I'm worth $X and making <$X.

Self-assessment is not a scientific method.


Which is why I used the variable "X".
 
You can't deny that someone with mad skills in a high-end industry, which has been decimated (temporarily, we hope) by the economy... who is now working at a job well below their skill level... is bad for the economy in general.
 
"underemployment" isn't really that bizarre of a concept, is it?


"High end skills" folks in "high end industry" are not the folks who are having problems getting jobs. Look at the regional and industry numbers. The folks who are suffering are 1) folks who were in construction and 2) folks who are unskilled or semi-skilled.

The variable "X" you're looking at there is not scientific simply because you used a "variable". "Mad skills" are subjective, not objective. I am unconvinced you've "removed yourself" from the example, as much as you protest to such.


The Stealth Hippopotamus: All in all I don't think the President has the ability to work the numbers like people are saying. It gives him/government far too much credit.


You have to remember that the Obama administration is both legendarily inept and masterfully criminal at the same time according to many who oppose it.
 
2012-10-05 12:35:57 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: It never has.


I guess I was an odd management type.  If someone applied, they always got a phone call or a mailed acknowledgement or both.  Even those that were obviously unqualified.  However, I started working long before the dot.com age.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-05 12:39:54 PM

Nabb1: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Jackson Herring: Nabb1: Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...

From what I recall of the politics threads from 2004, those methods and numbers did not work fine at all for the left leaning folks, many of whom rebuked the calculations with these same arguments in this article, but were perfectly okay for Bush supporters. Funny how things change, isn't it?

Oh of course, both sides are completely the same

So vote Republican.

You know, as much as I enjoy the Mutt and Jeff routine with the same boring, predictable, canned responses, there are other options besides the two dominant parties. Libertarian, Green, whatever. It may not affect the outcome, but at least you can assert your position in the booth.


Yes, you can make a pointless gesture that will acomplish nothing and that no one will even pay attention to.
 
2012-10-05 12:43:35 PM

vpb: Yes, you can make a pointless gesture that will acomplish nothing and that no one will even pay attention to.


It accomplishes exactly as much as any other vote in a non swing state.
 
2012-10-05 12:47:24 PM
pbs.twimg.com

i.imgur.com 
 
2012-10-05 12:52:09 PM
The conservatives are doing it wrong.

Their whining about the jobs report is drowning out the liberals whining about the debate, thus eliminating any real boost Romney had and turning the national dialogue to the unemployment numbers dropping below 8%

So way to take advantage of Romney's performance guys. His momentum lasted a whole day.
 
2012-10-05 12:56:40 PM
Strange, I didn't notice any republican whining when the rate gave them a political advantage.
 
2012-10-05 12:58:08 PM

Aarontology: So way to take advantage of Romney's performance guys. His momentum lasted a whole day.


I think this is the interesting thing, as well. Dems were kinda disheartened yesterday, but *immediately* morale-building memes appeared and spread, plus the good jobs report AND the fact that it's Friday so the news cycle is ending.
 
2012-10-05 01:01:58 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Aarontology: So way to take advantage of Romney's performance guys. His momentum lasted a whole day.

I think this is the interesting thing, as well. Dems were kinda disheartened yesterday, but *immediately* morale-building memes appeared and spread, plus the good jobs report AND the fact that it's Friday so the news cycle is ending.


Yep. The jobs report is going to push the debate right out of the news cycle. Plus, guess which is going to be talked about on Monday? Jobs, or the debate?
 
2012-10-05 01:06:00 PM
This shat again?

If you include the people who give up looking for work you get U6.

That's going down to. In fact it correlates quite well to the official unemployment rate * 1.74
research.stlouisfed.org

Don't trust the bureau of labor statistics? Fine, how about gallup.

growlersoftware.com

For comparison
growlersoftware.com

Now if the BLS was into manipulating data to support Obama, why didn't they lower the U3 figure for the 2010 election?
 
2012-10-05 01:06:03 PM
These numbers will have the ever-livin'-shiat revised out of them in Nov.

The lies from the Obama admin pile up so high so fast, you need a helicopter to stay above it.
 
2012-10-05 01:07:24 PM
How does it feel to root AGAINST America? The unemployment rate is below 8%. "Boooooo!" Fark you anti-American right wing @ssholes.

Sorry you lost your "unemployment is still above 8%!" attack line against the only guy trying to bring us back from the Dubya recession.
 
2012-10-05 01:11:10 PM

Aarontology: So way to take advantage of Romney's performance guys. His momentum lasted a whole day.


What's funny is them whiny about this "it came out of nowhere! Right after the debate!!!"

The jobs figures are released on planned schedules. Everyone knew before the debate that this was going to be released today.

"Posted: October 2, 2012: This Friday is going to be a very important employment situation report from the U.S. Labor Department"
 
2012-10-05 01:13:43 PM

MeinRS6: These numbers will have the ever-livin'-shiat revised out of them in Nov.

The lies from the Obama admin pile up so high so fast, you need a helicopter to stay above it.


Did someone say helicopter?

doomsdayind.files.wordpress.com

Do you think Fartbongo is going to tell them to drop the U3 again before the last jobs report before the election?
 
2012-10-05 01:13:50 PM

MeinRS6: The lies from the Obama admin pile up so high so fast, you need a helicopter to stay above it.


The Obama administration doesn't control the BLS, you moron.
 
2012-10-05 01:14:25 PM
So we need to compare Obama using a metric we have never used before for other presidents and compare that number with the good unemployment numbers that don't count those things.

Yeah that sounds fair.
 
2012-10-05 01:16:43 PM

impaler: MeinRS6: The lies from the Obama admin pile up so high so fast, you need a helicopter to stay above it.

The Obama administration doesn't control the BLS, you moron.


Oh, I'd bet we could find some Obama influence there if we tried.

And check out that re-benchmarking - Link  That's some good timing.
 
2012-10-05 01:17:20 PM

impaler: Now if the BLS was into manipulating data to support Obama, why didn't they lower the U3 figure for the 2010 election?


Because the deal Obama has with the BLS is he is only allowed to skew them 2% on any given month. Just before the 2010 election the U3 was actually at 12%. Obviously. It was the only thing that allowed them to keep the Senate.
 
2012-10-05 01:17:54 PM

impaler: This shat again?

If you include the people who give up looking for work you get U6.

That's going down to. In fact it correlates quite well to the official unemployment rate * 1.74
[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

Don't trust the bureau of labor statistics? Fine, how about gallup.

[growlersoftware.com image 580x559]

For comparison
[growlersoftware.com image 580x544]

Now if the BLS was into manipulating data to support Obama, why didn't they lower the U3 figure for the 2010 election?


No see Republicans want you to compare the worst looking possible numbers of Obama's and then compare those to the NORMAL unemployment rate of Republicans.

See Obama "Unemployed":
People not looking for work.
Children
People with part time jobs
People with temporary jobs.

Republican Unemployed:
The normal "Unemployed" statistics not counting those people above.

They make up more BS numbers and double standards
 
2012-10-05 01:19:59 PM

impaler: MeinRS6: The lies from the Obama admin pile up so high so fast, you need a helicopter to stay above it.

The Obama administration doesn't control the BLS, you moron.


That's what they want you to believe! They most certainly do control the BLS, just as they control events in the Middle East, climate change, the migration of water fowl and the earth's rotational wobble.

IT'S ALL OBAMA!
 
2012-10-05 01:20:42 PM

MeinRS6: And check out that re-benchmarking - Link  That's some good timing.


Yep. They've been cleverly timing it the same way for years just in preparation for that moment...

From the BLS:

In accordance with usual practice, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is announcing the preliminary estimate of the upcoming annual benchmark revision to the establishment survey employment series. The final benchmark revision will be issued on February 1, 2013, with the publication of the January 2013 Employment Situation news release.

Each year, the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey employment estimates are benchmarked to comprehensive counts of employment for the month of March. These counts are derived from state unemployment insurance (UI) tax records that nearly all employers are required to file. For National CES employment series, the annual benchmark revisions over the last 10 years have averaged plus or minus three-tenths of one percent of Total nonfarm employment. The preliminary estimate of the benchmark revision indicates an upward adjustment to March 2012 Total nonfarm employment of 386,000 (0.3 percent).
 
2012-10-05 01:23:45 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: downstairs: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: downstairs: I'm saying I'm worth $X and making <$X.

Self-assessment is not a scientific method.


Which is why I used the variable "X".
 
You can't deny that someone with mad skills in a high-end industry, which has been decimated (temporarily, we hope) by the economy... who is now working at a job well below their skill level... is bad for the economy in general.
 
"underemployment" isn't really that bizarre of a concept, is it?

"High end skills" folks in "high end industry" are not the folks who are having problems getting jobs. Look at the regional and industry numbers. The folks who are suffering are 1) folks who were in construction and 2) folks who are unskilled or semi-skilled.

The variable "X" you're looking at there is not scientific simply because you used a "variable". "Mad skills" are subjective, not objective. I am unconvinced you've "removed yourself" from the example, as much as you protest to such.


The Stealth Hippopotamus: All in all I don't think the President has the ability to work the numbers like people are saying. It gives him/government far too much credit.

You have to remember that the Obama administration is both legendarily inept and masterfully criminal at the same time according to many who oppose it.


So just like Bush?
 
2012-10-05 01:26:35 PM

MeinRS6: And check out that re-benchmarking - Link  That's some good timing.


Happens every year at this time.

Link
Sep. 29, 2011: "In accordance with usual practice, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is announcing the preliminary estimate of the upcoming annual benchmark revision to the establishment survey employment series. The final benchmark revision will be issued on February 3, 2012, with the publication of the January 2012 Employment Situation news release."
 
2012-10-05 01:27:42 PM
Its all those people selling Obamaphones on the street that helped with unemployment. 
 
2012-10-05 01:28:36 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: You have to remember that the Obama administration is both legendarily inept and masterfully criminal at the same time according to many who oppose it.

So just like Bush?


No.

Bush was legendarily inept.
Cheney was masterfully criminal.
 
2012-10-05 01:35:39 PM

impaler: Now if the BLS was into manipulating data to support Obama, why didn't they lower the U3 figure for the 2010 election?


Or, for that matter, why not start cooking the books in *June* and continue doing so in order to show an extended positive trend?
 
2012-10-05 01:37:55 PM

impaler: The jobs figures are released on planned schedules. Everyone knew before the debate that this was going to be released today.


I'm going to guess that most of the people rooting against America or wearing the tin foil hats didn't know that.
 
2012-10-05 01:41:19 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: impaler: Now if the BLS was into manipulating data to support Obama, why didn't they lower the U3 figure for the 2010 election?

Or, for that matter, why not start cooking the books in *June* and continue doing so in order to show an extended positive trend?



Well, now that you mention it, May did look suspicious.
 
2012-10-05 01:47:41 PM

impaler: MeinRS6: And check out that re-benchmarking - Link  That's some good timing.

Happens every year at this time.

Link
Sep. 29, 2011: "In accordance with usual practice, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is announcing the preliminary estimate of the upcoming annual benchmark revision to the establishment survey employment series. The final benchmark revision will be issued on February 3, 2012, with the publication of the January 2012 Employment Situation news release."


Republicans seem to be butt-hurt that Obama is using the same unemployment methodology that all other recent presidents have used.
 
2012-10-05 01:48:26 PM
Give it up, MeinRS6. Didn't you see what impaler posted before yours? Two charts independent to BLS that show unemployment has steadily been dropping.

JHC, if the Obama Administration had been cooking the books, as you all like to claim, don't you think they'd have made up better numbers sooner than one month before the election?

/Speaking of conspiracies, why did Mitt Romney take the 2009 amnesty for hiding his wealth in secret Swiss banks?
 
2012-10-05 01:52:18 PM

MeinRS6: These numbers will have the ever-livin'-shiat revised out of them in Nov.

The lies from the Obama admin pile up so high so fast, you need a helicopter to stay above it.


So do you have any proof these numbers were rigged? Or are these completely unsupported allegations just because it doesn't fit in with your world view?
 
2012-10-05 02:01:48 PM

Corvus: So do you have any proof these numbers were rigged?


If the numbers are based on not counting those no longer receiving benefits or the underemployed they are rigged.  It benefits both parties.  It does not benefit those still looking but not counted.  Also unemployment benefits are being scaled back in the time people are covered, so they are dropping out of the figures faster.  If you choose not to count a large segment of the population, then the numbers are skew the figures.  Also people on welfare are not counted as unemployed.  But that is a thornier issue.
 
Again, it benefits both parties.

 
 
2012-10-05 02:02:12 PM

Corvus: MeinRS6: These numbers will have the ever-livin'-shiat revised out of them in Nov.

The lies from the Obama admin pile up so high so fast, you need a helicopter to stay above it.

So do you have any proof these numbers were rigged? Or are these completely unsupported allegations just because it doesn't fit in with your world view?


It's a completely reasonable assumption based on the fact that 0bummer is a Kenyan Muslim Commufascist!

stupid lib world
 
2012-10-05 02:08:56 PM

vpb: Nabb1: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Jackson Herring: Nabb1: Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...

From what I recall of the politics threads from 2004, those methods and numbers did not work fine at all for the left leaning folks, many of whom rebuked the calculations with these same arguments in this article, but were perfectly okay for Bush supporters. Funny how things change, isn't it?

Oh of course, both sides are completely the same

So vote Republican.

You know, as much as I enjoy the Mutt and Jeff routine with the same boring, predictable, canned responses, there are other options besides the two dominant parties. Libertarian, Green, whatever. It may not affect the outcome, but at least you can assert your position in the booth.

Yes, you can make a pointless gesture that will acomplish nothing and that no one will even pay attention to.


Because your one vote for either of the other two candidates is worth more or something? Do you really believe that your own personal vote for either Romney or Obama accomplishes anything more that if I vote for Gary Johnson?
 
2012-10-05 02:10:41 PM

Fear_and_Loathing: If the numbers are based on not counting those no longer receiving benefits or the underemployed they are rigged.


Those are tracked by U6.

That's going down to. In fact it correlates quite well to the official unemployment rate * 1.74

Didn't I already post this?

research.stlouisfed.org
 
2012-10-05 02:11:49 PM

MeinRS6: These numbers will have the ever-livin'-shiat revised out of them in Nov.

The lies from the Obama admin pile up so high so fast, you need a helicopter to stay above it.


Awww..ain't you precious. Bless your heart.
 
2012-10-05 02:19:53 PM
Yes, labor participation is low, but labor participation has been dropping steadily since '00. And yes, the quality of jobs is going down, but that's also been true since the Bush Administration.

You don't get a fairer picture of what the numbers say by suddenly revising the criteria.
 
2012-10-05 02:32:40 PM

Fear_and_Loathing: Corvus: So do you have any proof these numbers were rigged?

If the numbers are based on not counting those no longer receiving benefits or the underemployed they are rigged.  It benefits both parties.  It does not benefit those still looking but not counted.  Also unemployment benefits are being scaled back in the time people are covered, so they are dropping out of the figures faster.  If you choose not to count a large segment of the population, then the numbers are skew the figures.  Also people on welfare are not counted as unemployed.  But that is a thornier issue.
 
Again, it benefits both parties.


You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I'm Canadian and I understand the definitions/criteria for calculating this US unemployment statistics better than you do. Why you would presume to have an opinion worth posting on this subject is a mystery.
 
2012-10-05 03:00:40 PM

impaler: This shat again?

If you include the people who give up looking for work you get U6.

That's going down to. In fact it correlates quite well to the official unemployment rate * 1.74
[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

Don't trust the bureau of labor statistics? Fine, how about gallup.

[growlersoftware.com image 580x559]

Someone get the lights.

For comparison
[growlersoftware.com image 580x544]

Now if the BLS was into manipulating data to support Obama, why didn't they lower the U3 figure for the 2010 election?

 
2012-10-05 03:01:44 PM
There's just one problem with that number.

KENYAN KENYAN KENYAN KENYAN KENYAN KENYAN
 
2012-10-05 03:03:45 PM

Nabb1: Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...

From what I recall of the politics threads from 2004, those methods and numbers did not work fine at all for the left leaning folks, many of whom rebuked the calculations with these same arguments in this article, but were perfectly okay for Bush supporters. Funny how things change, isn't it?


Deep thoughts from a Fark Independent.
 
2012-10-05 03:03:49 PM

downstairs: Someone who's true value is, say, $100,000/year making $25k...


So tell me, what is someone's "true" value?
 
2012-10-05 03:04:44 PM
Heh... These numbers have got the GOP shills in a tizzy, haven't they?
 
2012-10-05 03:04:45 PM

Aarontology: The conservatives are doing it wrong.

Their whining about the jobs report is drowning out the liberals whining about the debate, thus eliminating any real boost Romney had and turning the national dialogue to the unemployment numbers dropping below 8%

So way to take advantage of Romney's performance guys. His momentum lasted a whole day.


There must be some kind of political physicals law that once a Democrat screws up, a Republican will soon enough do something dumber. Like some kind of elastic effect.
 
2012-10-05 03:05:22 PM

downstairs: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: downstairs: I'm saying I'm worth $X and making <$X.

Self-assessment is not a scientific method.


Which is why I used the variable "X".
 
You can't deny that someone with mad skills in a high-end industry, which has been decimated (temporarily, we hope) by the economy... who is now working at a job well below their skill level... is bad for the economy in general.
 
"underemployment" isn't really that bizarre of a concept, is it?


It's a free market. You're being paid exactly what you're worth. Stop whining, commie.
 
2012-10-05 03:05:27 PM
Yes yes...every jobs report that is good for Obama, we go through this. The calculations are evil and this is just making up numbers. Thanks. I'll see you next month.

Hey, I know, let's start comparing U3 and U6 and get really mad that nobody is reporting the REAL numbers
 
2012-10-05 03:06:19 PM

impaler: This shat again?


Don't you get it? Maybe eight years ago liberals said the same thing HotAir is saying. QED.
 
2012-10-05 03:06:20 PM

Jackson Herring: Nabb1: Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...

From what I recall of the politics threads from 2004, those methods and numbers did not work fine at all for the left leaning folks, many of whom rebuked the calculations with these same arguments in this article, but were perfectly okay for Bush supporters. Funny how things change, isn't it?

Oh of course, both sides are completely the same


Noted conservatroll Jackson Herring scared out of yet another Fark thread!
 
2012-10-05 03:06:54 PM

Nabb1: Aw, bless your heart.


Yes, that is basically what I was saying.
 
Displayed 50 of 594 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report