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 08:02:51 PM

OgreMagi: intelligent comment below: OgreMagi: You mean before the Obama administration started F&F, right? Because Bush didn't start it. How many times does this need to be repeated, or are you people purposely pretending to be ignorant?


Pretending to be ignorant? Oh like claiming Bush stopped the program long ago once they realized they couldn't track guns?

0bama didn't start anything. the ATF ran these programs until 2011. All the programs under Bush and 0bama lost guns to Mexico, so why are you blaming 0bama only for a program run by another agency and started under the Bush administration?

My god, you are a complete farking stooge.


Says the guy who claimed Bush stopped the program
 
2012-10-05 08:04:06 PM

theknuckler_33: If you were self-employed and paying not only the employee, but also the employER portion of UI taxes, why would you NOT file for unemployment benefits when your business went under?

You are either colossally stupid of lying through your teeth.

Considering the fact that your comments are in relation to the validity (or supposed lack thereof) of the BLS report, I'm leaning heavily towards the latter.


I was self-employed for almost 10 years. Had no employees other than myself. To my knowledge, I never paid any UI taxes, therefore would not have been eligible for unemployment.

If this is not true, then count me as colossally stupid. What possible benefit is there to be gained by publicly admitting to have failed miserably and being out of work for so long (or lying to make such a claim)?

I don't really know where the BLS numbers come from (and don't particularly care). I just know I was never polled about anything, was never on unemployment and, during the time period I was discussing, was never on anyone else's payroll. This is my basis for saying I was never included in any of these numbers.
 
2012-10-05 08:13:05 PM

GORDON: So, since the jobless numbers are very obviously bullshiat to make Obama's job numbers look good ahead of the election, are any Obama voters actually pissed off about this?

I'm guessing not, but it is nice to hope some of those people aren't completely naive.


For the 100th time, the BLS is not a partisan organization.

The only thing political, is certain republicans lying and saying the numbers are doctored - which caused some Republicans to call bullshat on those idiots.
 
2012-10-05 08:14:36 PM
Probably part of the Republican agenda to unseat Obama! Oh noes!!!
 
2012-10-05 08:16:45 PM
Newsflash: Romney just said that the better unemployment rate is because so many people have stopped looking.

intelligent comment below: Are you kidding? That loser stalks me all the time. I just returned the favor by pointing out that troll sounded just like skullkrusher, and magically he appears a minute later to deny


Don't be a 'tard. Skullkrusher is all over the political threads, and this is a big one. Of course he was reading the thread before you knew of it. You know what else? There are LOTS of people reading this thread who aren't commenting. Don't be scared .

Christ, who has time to worry about who might be an alt?
 
2012-10-05 08:24:06 PM

MacWizard: I don't really know where the BLS numbers come from (and don't particularly care). I just know I was never polled about anything, was never on unemployment and, during the time period I was discussing, was never on anyone else's payroll. This is my basis for saying I was never included in any of these numbers.


I don't think you understand how polls work. Unless you think you were the only person in the country in your situation?
 
2012-10-05 08:27:20 PM
Once again for all the children, the workforce should have shrunk this year and is going to shrink for the next decade. This has been known for decades. And yes this means the unemployment thing WILL go away on its own, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Whoever is president for the next term is being handed a golden ticket because there is nothing the government can do to keep the unemployment rate high over four years. Even a Congress determined to destroy the country to spite the President will be helpless to prevent unemployment dropping as Baby Boomers retire.
 
2012-10-05 08:42:48 PM

Lt_Ryan: theknuckler_33: indylaw: tomWright: It could be legitimate, it could be politically shaded. The timing is suspicious

In other words, it's suspicious because it doesn't favor your narrative.

Indeed. A slow, but stead downward trend in the unemployment rate that has been going on for about two years has *gasp* continued. Very suspicious.

A slow steady down-ward trend would also continue if the people were no longer longer employee because they kept falling off the unemployment count.

Either way it doesn't matter. Obama promised that with the Recovery Plan we would be at ~5.6% unemployment and we aren't even close. If you think he deserves a second chance at getting employment down to 5% then vote for him, if not then vote him out.


Considering we are moving in that diretion, I will vote for him. At least I know what to expect from him. With Romney his policies and positions change everytime he gets in front of a mirophone.
 
2012-10-05 08:45:51 PM

intelligent comment below: keylock71: skullkrusher:
no, do I sound mad?

[deepian.com image 296x304]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


Heh... Looks like you've earned your Fark "I've got a Stalker!" badge. Well done.

*sniff* I can remember when you first got hear... *wipes tear*


Are you kidding? That loser stalks me all the time. I just returned the favor by pointing out that troll sounded just like skullkrusher, and magically he appears a minute later to deny


If your goal is to look like a tool, you have been successful. Just knock it off.
 
2012-10-05 08:58:06 PM

Fart_Machine: Lt_Ryan: theknuckler_33: indylaw: tomWright: It could be legitimate, it could be politically shaded. The timing is suspicious

In other words, it's suspicious because it doesn't favor your narrative.

Indeed. A slow, but stead downward trend in the unemployment rate that has been going on for about two years has *gasp* continued. Very suspicious.

A slow steady down-ward trend would also continue if the people were no longer longer employee because they kept falling off the unemployment count.

Either way it doesn't matter. Obama promised that with the Recovery Plan we would be at ~5.6% unemployment and we aren't even close. If you think he deserves a second chance at getting employment down to 5% then vote for him, if not then vote him out.

Citation needed.


That graph is all over the internet. But here is a link to a more official source...it's on page 4.
Link
 
2012-10-05 09:10:22 PM

jst3p: I call bullshiat.


Go ahead, HP closed their doors and laid a few hundred people in 2010-2012. That was just there, not including Oracle and Intel.
 
2012-10-05 09:12:07 PM

Johnny Swank: Let's see, Colorado Springs, which basically exists at the behest of government contracts and bases, has a number of teabaggers whining about government cutting jobs. Sounds like you need to get yourselves some bootstraps, chief.


I have a great job making more much more money than I was at HP, I have no worries. A few of my friends are not that lucky.
 
2012-10-05 09:18:53 PM

Lt_Ryan: Fart_Machine: Lt_Ryan: theknuckler_33: indylaw: tomWright: It could be legitimate, it could be politically shaded. The timing is suspicious

In other words, it's suspicious because it doesn't favor your narrative.

Indeed. A slow, but stead downward trend in the unemployment rate that has been going on for about two years has *gasp* continued. Very suspicious.

A slow steady down-ward trend would also continue if the people were no longer longer employee because they kept falling off the unemployment count.

Either way it doesn't matter. Obama promised that with the Recovery Plan we would be at ~5.6% unemployment and we aren't even close. If you think he deserves a second chance at getting employment down to 5% then vote for him, if not then vote him out.

Citation needed.

That graph is all over the internet. But here is a link to a more official source...it's on page 4.
Link


You understand that's not a promise but rather a projection based on a commissioned report right? I guess that's what you get for getting your information off blogs.
 
2012-10-05 09:20:27 PM
I love fark and it makes me laugh, but when there is a political thread like this I just shake my head.

I can't believe how farking stupid some people. This thread is prime example
 
2012-10-05 09:24:31 PM

James Monroe: I love fark and it makes me laugh, but when there is a political thread like this I just shake my head.

I can't believe how farking stupid some people. This thread is prime example


The HotAir submission should've been a dead giveaway for you.
 
2012-10-05 09:26:10 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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.


If the President actually did have the power rig the numbers, you'd think he'd choose a lower number to make himself look better, like 4.2%.

7.8% is nothing to sneeze at, but it's still a long way to go before anyone starts unfurling a "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" banner.
 
2012-10-05 09:27:38 PM
I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here:
"I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs."
"I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking."
"Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!"

R.I.P. Bill Hicks
 
2012-10-05 09:30:22 PM
jst3p

tony41454: No incumbent has ever been reelected with the unemployment rate over 8%. So they had to get the number down, and they found a way to do it. You simply lower the number of people looking. So what we're being told is that thanks to a measly 114,000 jobs, the unemployment rate for Sept. fell from 8.3 to 7.8. That's a full half a percentage point. No way. Also, 1.1 million people have disappeared from the labor force during the past year. How does that happen? The government erases them, just assumes those people aren't looking. So they just subtract that many jobs, therefore the unemployment rate goes down.

And those 114,000 jobs? 114,000 is the number of people that can fit in a large college stadium. We have 310 million people, 100 million working age adults, and we barely created 2,000 jobs per state for 50 states (or 57, depending on who you're talking to), yet they reduce the unemployment rate by half a point? Riiiiight.

The administration manipulated these numbers just so Obama could say the rate is below 8%, that's the only reason.

Look how stupid you are!

Betsey Stevenson, a former chief economist at the Department of Labor under President Obama, said in a phone interview with TPM that the conspiracy theories were misguided in just about every way possible. For starters, the Bureau of Labor Statistics isn't currently run by a political appointee. For most of Obama's term, the commissioner was a holdover appointed by President Bush. The current acting commissioner John Gavin is a career BLS economist, not an Obama appointee.

The underlying data behind the BLS reports is also publicly released and used by analysts across the private sector and academia, meaning a conspiracy would have to survive scrutiny from trained economists of all political stripes.

Nor is there much time to cook the books at the top level if they wanted to.

"I worked for Secretary Hilda Solis and she didn't know the job numbers until 8 a.m. on the day," Stevenson said. "Which made my job very difficult, because I had to help her figure out what she was going to say when they were released." The BLS releases the numbers publicly at 8:30 a.m. ET.


Oh yeah? From the Washington Free Press:
At least two economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) have contributed to President Barack Obama's campaign. Harley Frazis of Bethesda, MD, has contributed at least $2,000 to Obama and $9,000 to the Democratic National Committee over the last three election cycles. Stephen Phillips of Washington, D.C., has contributed at least $270 to Obama during the 2012 cycle.

So, SURE I can believe any numbers they put up, huh??? They're not biased in any way, nor skewed, nor cooked, huh? Man, am I really relieved at that!!!
  (No extra charge for the sarcasm.)
 
2012-10-05 09:36:22 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: jst3p: I call bullshiat.

Go ahead, HP closed their doors and laid a few hundred people in 2010-2012. That was just there, not including Oracle and Intel.


You got a citation for those Oracle layoffs? They certainly let some people go from the companies they have acquired over the years, but that was due to redundancy (e.g. H.R., accounting, etc) rather than the economy. Possibly some non-US layoffs. I'd be interested in reading about that if you have a link.

/Oracle employee for about 5 years.
 
2012-10-05 09:41:26 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Just wait until WND notices that this unemployment report is full of ARABIC NUMERALS.


That's not all -- the numbers were probably manipulated by Al-Jebra.
 
2012-10-05 09:41:51 PM

NateGrey: Nabb1: NateGrey: 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.

Deep thoughts are probably a completely foreign concept to anyone who uses that term.

Bush hit an all time high unemployment rate your reaction:

" Nabb1 [TotalFark] 2003-06-06 05:08:48 PM
Hopefully, these jobless figures are mere hesitance on the part of businesses. The Dow is back up above 9000, and all the other recent numbers have been cautiously optimistic, like retail sales. "

I like the cautious optimism. I am sure when Obama did it you had the same reaction:

" Nabb1 [TotalFark] 2010-10-06 10:05:15 AM
I bet they feel stimulated, though."

Republican humor!


Man. You really Nailed Him™, Colbert. Great work on pinning down is commitment to being non-commital.
 
2012-10-05 09:45:01 PM

theknuckler_33: HST's Dead Carcass: jst3p: I call bullshiat.

Go ahead, HP closed their doors and laid a few hundred people in 2010-2012. That was just there, not including Oracle and Intel.

You got a citation for those Oracle layoffs? They certainly let some people go from the companies they have acquired over the years, but that was due to redundancy (e.g. H.R., accounting, etc) rather than the economy. Possibly some non-US layoffs. I'd be interested in reading about that if you have a link.

/Oracle employee for about 5 years.


He didn't say a few hundred people were laid off. He said they were laid. You know those executive committees get busy.
 
2012-10-05 09:45:51 PM

James Monroe: I love fark and it makes me laugh, but when there is a political thread like this I just shake my head.

I can't believe how farking stupid some people. This thread is prime example


I know another prime example.
 
2012-10-05 09:46:46 PM

tony41454: Oh yeah? From the Washington Free Press:
At least two economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) have contributed to President Barack Obama's campaign. Harley Frazis of Bethesda, MD, has contributed at least $2,000 to Obama and $9,000 to the Democratic National Committee over the last three election cycles. Stephen Phillips of Washington, D.C., has contributed at least $270 to Obama during the 2012 cycle.

So, SURE I can believe any numbers they put up, huh??? They're not biased in any way, nor skewed, nor cooked, huh? Man, am I really relieved at that!!! (No extra charge for the sarcasm.)


Are you seriously going to suggest that NO ONE at the BLS contributed to McCain or Romney?
 
2012-10-05 09:50:03 PM

tony41454: Oh yeah? From the Washington Free Press:
At least two economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) have contributed to President Barack Obama's campaign. Harley Frazis of Bethesda, MD, has contributed at least $2,000 to Obama and $9,000 to the Democratic National Committee over the last three election cycles. Stephen Phillips of Washington, D.C., has contributed at least $270 to Obama during the 2012 cycle.

So, SURE I can believe any numbers they put up, huh??? They're not biased in any way, nor skewed, nor cooked, huh? Man, am I really relieved at that!!!  (No extra charge for the sarcasm.)


2 employees out of 2500? That's your evidence of a biased organization?

Honestly. I would think a group of statisticians would have about 2500 people contributing to Obama, because they know WTF is up, and aren't persuaded by propaganda "news" sources.
 
2012-10-05 09:51:12 PM

theknuckler_33: Are you seriously going to suggest that NO ONE at the BLS contributed to McCain or Romney?


That reminds me. I might have to look for that tomorrow.
 
2012-10-05 09:55:30 PM

aug3: As the year 2011 began on Jan. 1, the oldest members of the Baby Boom generation celebrated their 65th birthday. In fact, on that day, and for every day for the next 19 years, 10,000 baby boomers will reach age 65.


And most of them will continue to work as their retirement savings tanked or they were living for the moment and had little or no savings to begin with.
 
2012-10-05 10:00:19 PM

s2s2s2: NateGrey: Nabb1: NateGrey: 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.

Deep thoughts are probably a completely foreign concept to anyone who uses that term.

Bush hit an all time high unemployment rate your reaction:

" Nabb1 [TotalFark] 2003-06-06 05:08:48 PM
Hopefully, these jobless figures are mere hesitance on the part of businesses. The Dow is back up above 9000, and all the other recent numbers have been cautiously optimistic, like retail sales. "

I like the cautious optimism. I am sure when Obama did it you had the same reaction:

" Nabb1 [TotalFark] 2010-10-06 10:05:15 AM
I bet they feel stimulated, though."

Republican humor!

Man. You really Nailed Him™, Colbert. Great work on pinning down is commitment to being non-commital.


Too bad you are just a noob. I am sure google would be littered with your Fark Independence.
 
2012-10-05 10:03:51 PM
Unemployment Mystery Solved? As Jobless Benefits Expire, More Seeking Part-Time Work
Put simply: take 100,000 new and newly-discovered government jobs, add a modest 100,000 private sector jobs, then--crucially--add 600,000 part-time jobs taken by people suddenly losing their federal extended unemployment benefits, and you suddenly have a near-complete explanation of how the unemployment rate fell dramatically in a near-recession economy. It's not that the economy is better--far from it, and not just that government is spinning the data--though it is: it's simply that federal cash is running out, and incentives matter.

Link
 
2012-10-05 10:08:35 PM
impaler

tony41454: Oh yeah? From the Washington Free Press:
At least two economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) have contributed to President Barack Obama's campaign. Harley Frazis of Bethesda, MD, has contributed at least $2,000 to Obama and $9,000 to the Democratic National Committee over the last three election cycles. Stephen Phillips of Washington, D.C., has contributed at least $270 to Obama during the 2012 cycle.

So, SURE I can believe any numbers they put up, huh??? They're not biased in any way, nor skewed, nor cooked, huh? Man, am I really relieved at that!!! (No extra charge for the sarcasm.)


2 employees out of 2500? That's your evidence of a biased organization?


Then give me a breakdown of who contributed to whom. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
 
2012-10-05 10:09:41 PM

tony41454: Unemployment Mystery Solved? As Jobless Benefits Expire, More Seeking Part-Time Work
Put simply: take 100,000 new and newly-discovered government jobs, add a modest 100,000 private sector jobs, then--crucially--add 600,000 part-time jobs taken by people suddenly losing their federal extended unemployment benefits, and you suddenly have a near-complete explanation of how the unemployment rate fell dramatically in a near-recession economy. It's not that the economy is better--far from it, and not just that government is spinning the data--though it is: it's simply that federal cash is running out, and incentives matter.

Link


Man, you really hate the fact that employment numbers are down under the presidency of the guy you want murdered.
 
2012-10-05 10:11:21 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: MacWizard: I don't really know where the BLS numbers come from (and don't particularly care). I just know I was never polled about anything, was never on unemployment and, during the time period I was discussing, was never on anyone else's payroll. This is my basis for saying I was never included in any of these numbers.

I don't think you understand how polls work. Unless you think you were the only person in the country in your situation?


I understand how polls work. You call a small subset of people who still use land-lines and are willing to talk to poll-takers, ask them a few questions and assume their answers are a) factual and b) representative of a much larger group.

But it's called the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Polls are not statistics. If their numbers come from polls and not some quantifiable source, they ought to be called the Bureau of Wild-Ass Guesses.
 
2012-10-05 10:16:32 PM

tony41454: Then give me a breakdown of who contributed to whom. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg.


The data for contributions was already searched.

They found 2.

I'll give you a report tomorrow.
 
2012-10-05 10:17:43 PM

MacWizard: But it's called the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Polls are not statistics


Polls are sampling.

Sampling is statistics.

Polls are a huge portion of statistics.

People are really this ignorant?
 
2012-10-05 10:20:26 PM

impaler: SomeAmerican: The case for no recovery at all, showing employed people as a percent of the civilian population, with the size of the civilian population determined by the US census:



If you ignore the increasing population of retiring people.


People who trot this out act like baby boomers didn't fark and have kids of their own who had their own to take their place.
 
2012-10-05 10:21:33 PM

impaler: theknuckler_33: Are you seriously going to suggest that NO ONE at the BLS contributed to McCain or Romney?

That reminds me. I might have to look for that tomorrow.


At least two at BLS have given to Obama.

But really, that's irrelevant. If the BLS lied, this would be bigger news than the unemployment numbers. I tend not to believe conspiracy nonsense, and so until there's proof, I accept these statistics as good news for the economy but bad news for Romney.
 
2012-10-05 10:24:24 PM
Mrtraveler01

tony41454: Breitbart actually has people checking facts


And the mainstream media DOES???????
 
2012-10-05 10:24:51 PM
So...this means the unemployment rate was even HIGHER when Bush left office?

And it also means that, if Romney gets elected, he'll immediately change the way we measure the unemployment rate, right?

No on both? Well then, fark off you whiny conservative biatches. I remember when conservatives held themselves out as being rugged and tough. It was never true, but at least the pretended. Now they're not even pretending. They just flat out admit that they're a bunch of complete weenies.
 
2012-10-05 10:27:16 PM

tony41454: Mrtraveler01

tony41454: Breitbart actually has people checking facts


And the mainstream media DOES???????


So you admit that Breitbart really doesn't have people checking facts?

At least we're getting somewhere.
 
2012-10-05 10:28:12 PM

tony41454: And the mainstream media DOES???????


Does the Mainstream Media include Fox News?

I mean they are #1 in the Cable News ratings so technically they are in the "mainstream".
 
2012-10-05 10:29:38 PM
by JOHN NOLTE 5 Oct 2012

As soon as ex-General Electric CEO Jack Welch fired off a tweet questioning today's just released "unbelievable jobs numbers," the media went into a frenzy talking about how "conservatives" were launching conspiracy theories. Well, that's handy for the media and the Obama campaign, but it's not just "conservatives" who are confused by a full 0.3% drop in unemployment when only 114k jobs were created.
CNBC is as confused as the rest of us:

Job growth remained tame in September, with the economy creating just 114,000 net new positions though the unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent, the first time it has been below 8 percent in 43 months.
The report presented a slew of contradictory data points, with the total employment level soaring despite the low net number.

The falling jobless rate had been a function as much of the continued shrinking in the labor force as it was an increase in new positions.

On the air, CNBC seemed equally perplexed by the biggest one-time drop in the unemployment rate in 29 years!

ABC News' Chris Cuomo is also skeptical of the numbers:

(tweet)#unemployment is at 7.8% in September. Except it really wasn't. It is much higher, w/ underemplyd and those who stopped looking. #notfixed
That "not fixed" tag smells a little like sarcasm to me.

Adding to the mystery is the fact that the U-6,  the longtime underemployment and unemployment number, remained fixed at a dismal 14.7%.

What this .03% drop means (per Ed Morrissey) is that the number of unemployed people dropped by 456,000 when only 114k jobs were created--well below the monthly average, and below population growth. Where did 342k people go to lower the number so dramatically just 31 days before a presidential election? Did they retire, leave the planet, die of old age in the unemployment office?

Moreover, just 30 days before the election, 342K people dropped off the unemployment rolls and lowered the unemployment rate to below 8%--a benchmark number vitally important to President Obama who promised his stimulus would ensure we wouldn't hit 8%.

Finally, this is the second hinky looking report/revision from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in as many months. Just days ago, 400,000 jobs were "discovered"--almost the exact number Obama needed to have a record of creating more jobs on his watch than were lost.

The Obama-friendly media is rolling out some very convenient talking points, with NPR crowing in its half-hourly news bulletin: "The unemlpoyment rate is now back where it was in when President Barack Obama took office in January 2009." Except it isn't, exactly.

No one's crying "conspiracy" here, but any journalist worth a damn always remains skeptical and looks to connect the dots of counter-intuitive good news released just weeks away from a major election.
 
2012-10-05 10:30:24 PM

tony41454: Unemployment Mystery Solved? As Jobless Benefits Expire, More Seeking Part-Time Work
Put simply: take 100,000 new and newly-discovered government jobs, add a modest 100,000 private sector jobs, then--crucially--add 600,000 part-time jobs taken by people suddenly losing their federal extended unemployment benefits, and you suddenly have a near-complete explanation of how the unemployment rate fell dramatically in a near-recession economy. It's not that the economy is better--far from it, and not just that government is spinning the data--though it is: it's simply that federal cash is running out, and incentives matter.

Link


That's comedy, right? "near-recession" economy? I'm pretty sure a recession requires at least two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. We haven't even had 1 since the Bush recession ended. At the minimum, you'd have to have at least 1 quarter to say we're in a "near-recession" economy since you'd only need one more quarter to get to a recession.

www.tradingeconomics.com

Sorry, nowhere near "near-recession" economy.

Hey, but you keep on hoping for bad economic news you America loving patriot.
 
2012-10-05 10:31:43 PM
Large idiot Fark factor at work. Sorry, since when is 7.8% good? Maybe to Obama kool aid drinkers. And, yes, those who have stopped looking should be factored in bringing the number to almost 11%. Open your eyes and get a grip.
 
2012-10-05 10:31:57 PM

tony41454: Bill Murray said I was weird

tony41454: Bill Murray said I was weird

Of all the people to whine against self-perceived bias, the guy who openly prays for the death of a sitting president (you) is the last person to take seriously. Still waiting for your to get off your cowardly ass and take up my bet since you're so confident RMoney is going to win so handily, scumbag.

You sound tired. And what bet was that? That Barney Fwank would give you a BJ?

I have offered you a bet at least a dozen times now. If you think Romney is going to trounce Obama this November, then put your money where your mouth is. He wins, you get a year of TotalFark or $50 to a charity of your choice. When I win, I don't even need that from you - I just want you to leave. I want you to leave this site and never come back. When Obama wins, you get IP-banned, and noone has to deal with your hatemongering, your death threats to Obama, and your posting of people's personal information here. If you think this is such an instant win for Romney, this should be a walk in the park for you.

So what's it going to be, scumbag?

I think you need to go with the Barney Fwank thang. I bet you can't stop dreaming about it. That, corpulent, sweaty body wallowing all over you--yeah, man, that'd be it for you, wouldn't it?


It's good to know you are accepting that Romney is probably going to lose. No surprise really. America is waking up to right-wing nonsense.
 
2012-10-05 10:32:27 PM

impaler: MacWizard: But it's called the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Polls are not statistics

Polls are sampling.

Sampling is statistics.

Polls are a huge portion of statistics.

People are really this ignorant?


According to polls, despite all the facts at hand, about 47% of people believe Romney is the best person to run the country. So, yes, people really are this ignorant.

If you believe polls.
 
2012-10-05 10:33:47 PM
Employment rates during Obama's presidency:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-05 10:34:36 PM

legalgus: Large idiot Fark factor at work. Sorry, since when is 7.8% good? Maybe to Obama kool aid drinkers. And, yes, those who have stopped looking should be factored in bringing the number to almost 11%. Open your eyes and get a grip.


Charitable wager is still open to you too, sunshine.
 
2012-10-05 10:38:16 PM

legalgus: Large idiot Fark factor at work. Sorry, since when is 7.8% good?


Since it represents a point on a continuing downward trend, obviously.

Maybe to Obama kool aid drinkers. And, yes, those who have stopped looking should be factored in bringing the number to almost 11%. Open your eyes and get a grip.

They are included in the U5 I believe and that rate is also coming down.

You do understand the concept of trends, right?
 
2012-10-05 10:38:27 PM
Good job, subby. I am shocked SHOCKED that this headline got greenlit.
 
2012-10-05 10:38:32 PM
How anyone believes gov't math astounds me.

It's almost as if they were educated in gov't-run schools, and brainwashed to accepting what these people say from a young age.
 
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