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.

(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
    More: Followup, CNBC, Chris Cuomo, warehousing, bright spot, Bureau of Labor Statistics  
•       •       •

9160 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Oct 2012 at 3:00 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



592 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-10-05 09:49:31 AM  
Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...
 
2012-10-05 09:58:54 AM  
I know one that was cut off from unemployment and has been clinging on to everything he owns. He attributes to the number of people not on unemployment.

Here's my town compared to statewide. Unemployment is dropping for the state because people were kicked off unemployment after an internal audit, but Colorado Springs is still rising.

Our town is at 9.8%, and at least 50% of that is IT/Tech jobs. Additionally, you can see by the red line for Colorado, exactly when they got the results of the audit, because the line goes from 9.3% to 7.7%... in an effort to make the national average look better. That many jobs weren't found, they just ended Unemployment for thousands of people over a 2 month period.
 
2012-10-05 10:15:02 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: I know one that was cut off from unemployment and has been clinging on to everything he owns. He attributes to the number of people not on unemployment.

Here's my town compared to statewide. Unemployment is dropping for the state because people were kicked off unemployment after an internal audit, but Colorado Springs is still rising.

Our town is at 9.8%, and at least 50% of that is IT/Tech jobs. Additionally, you can see by the red line for Colorado, exactly when they got the results of the audit, because the line goes from 9.3% to 7.7%... in an effort to make the national average look better. That many jobs weren't found, they just ended Unemployment for thousands of people over a 2 month period.


CSB.
 
2012-10-05 10:28:13 AM  
Yeah that is the lie, if you run out of benefits, you no longer are looking.  Kind of an odd jump in logic.  My state has the second highest unemployment in the Nation at 10.7 percent statewide.  Job fairs routinely bring in 4000 or more people to look in a single day.  Many are officially not lo9oking for work.  It isn't that they have stopped, the Federal Gov't has just conviently swept them under the carpet.  The Gov't has given up on them, so they cease to exist, they have not given up on looking for jobs.
 
The state EDC gave a sweetheart deal to a sports star to move his company and it was tied to creating 400 jobs.  After 2 years, he had filled 200 jobs almost all from people he moved into the state from other states.  Then he aquired a company in Maryland with 400 employees.  This April he went bankrupt, laid off the 200 transients and the 400 in another state. But that is considered job creation.
 
We got a lot of stimulus money, we have some very nice roads now.  The money went to the largest businesses in the state.  They hired few workers and those they hired were temp jobs.  But the companies made a healthy profit.  Job creation almost nil.  But as I said, some nice back roads are very nice now.
 
The state now wants to have a fullfledged Casino.  Job creation, as long as the Indians don't own it.  I live very close to the two largest Casinos in the Western Hemisphere.  Where did most of the workforce come from?  Casino states.  Not local people.  Casinos are smart, they want people who know the business, have the skills and know the grind.  They don't want to train 1000's of workers.  They are a business.  Shipping in a whole workforce from out of state is not job creation.
 
My own employer got state grants that included hiring goals.  They could not make the hiring goals.  So they laid off expensive employees so they could hire to meet the goals.  Kind of like the big Red Sox trade this year to open up payroll.  They hired a lot of people with the salaries of those they laid off and they pocketed the rest.  They met the state goals, but the state did not care how many people they laid off to make those goals.  Most of the people they hired, while great people are untrained, poorly paid and transient in nature.  Job creation.
 
2012-10-05 11:24:22 AM  

Fear_and_Loathing: Yeah that is the lie, if you run out of benefits, you no longer are looking.  Kind of an odd jump in logic.  My state has the second highest unemployment in the Nation at 10.7 percent statewide.  Job fairs routinely bring in 4000 or more people to look in a single day.  Many are officially not lo9oking for work.  It isn't that they have stopped, the Federal Gov't has just conviently swept them under the carpet.  The Gov't has given up on them, so they cease to exist, they have not given up on looking for jobs.
 
The state EDC gave a sweetheart deal to a sports star to move his company and it was tied to creating 400 jobs.  After 2 years, he had filled 200 jobs almost all from people he moved into the state from other states.  Then he aquired a company in Maryland with 400 employees.  This April he went bankrupt, laid off the 200 transients and the 400 in another state. But that is considered job creation.
 
We got a lot of stimulus money, we have some very nice roads now.  The money went to the largest businesses in the state.  They hired few workers and those they hired were temp jobs.  But the companies made a healthy profit.  Job creation almost nil.  But as I said, some nice back roads are very nice now.
 
The state now wants to have a fullfledged Casino.  Job creation, as long as the Indians don't own it.  I live very close to the two largest Casinos in the Western Hemisphere.  Where did most of the workforce come from?  Casino states.  Not local people.  Casinos are smart, they want people who know the business, have the skills and know the grind.  They don't want to train 1000's of workers.  They are a business.  Shipping in a whole workforce from out of state is not job creation.
 
My own employer got state grants that included hiring goals.  They could not make the hiring goals.  So they laid off expensive employees so they could hire to meet the goals.  Kind of like the big Red Sox trade this year to open up payroll.  They hired a lot of people wit ...


So you're saying privatization doesn't work.
 
2012-10-05 11:25:27 AM  
I was listening to someone speaking on CNBC (keep in mind, this is, CNBC, not exactly a venue for fellating the Obama Administration) and they said one of the notable things about this report was that the employment rate actually did go down due to people getting more jobs and keeping.

/also, the number of August and September job gains were revised upwards again
//but keep at that chicken
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-05 11:26:11 AM  
And I'll bet Bush is responsible for the jobs added because Obama was just implementing plans that he set up, right?
 
2012-10-05 11:28:57 AM  
The only way to ever make sense of these numbers is to use consistent parameters. As long as this is the system we use to judge these numbers, its the system we use. We need to accept that.
 
2012-10-05 11:29:17 AM  
Odd, the Department of Labor said that's specifically not the case. Which is it? I'm confused.
 
2012-10-05 11:31:36 AM  

DamnYankees: The only way to ever make sense of these numbers is to use consistent parameters. As long as this is the system we use to judge these numbers, its the system we use. We need to accept that.


OH NO WE DON'T

Seriously. The Republicans accept so very little reality now, what's a little less?
 
2012-10-05 11:33:02 AM  
You know, if Republicans had only been willing to extend unemployment benefits further, unemployment would be higher because more people would still be on the rolls.
 
2012-10-05 11:33:05 AM  

propasaurus: So you're saying privatization doesn't work.


I said nothing of the sort, I'm saying neither side cares one way or the other.  The system and language is rigged to compliment the politicians.  People don't matter, just campaigns.
 
2012-10-05 11:33:45 AM  

unlikely: Odd, the Department of Labor said that's specifically not the case. Which is it? I'm confused.


Hush, the only real facts come from the GOP.
 
2012-10-05 11:33:45 AM  
It looks like the difference between the original article and this follow-up is whether they count part time work as employment.

I really don't understand the disconnect. A job is a job. I loved my last part time job. I was definitely employed. I made money, I paid taxes. Why wouldn't that count as employment? And why would "counting the part timers" be seen as fudging the numbers?
 
2012-10-05 11:33:47 AM  
If you all really believe unemployment is at 7.8%, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
 
2012-10-05 11:35:01 AM  

unlikely: Odd, the Department of Labor said that's specifically not the case. Which is it? I'm confused.


Give you a hint, the one that rhymes with Not Fair is consistently wrong.
 
2012-10-05 11:36:57 AM  

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?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-05 11:37:46 AM  

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


Well, if you believe that it isn't I have some swampland to sell you.

If I make a joke about selling you something I don't own or is worthless then I must be right. Right?
 
2012-10-05 11:39:19 AM  

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


Of course it isn't. Seniors on retirement are not on the rolls. But comparing the U6 today to the U3 in 2008 is also dishonest.
 
2012-10-05 11:39:40 AM  

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?


I think to both of those groups there's only one thing to say:

DamnYankees: The only way to ever make sense of these numbers is to use consistent parameters. As long as this is the system we use to judge these numbers, its the system we use. We need to accept that.

 
2012-10-05 11:39:44 AM  

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
 
2012-10-05 11:40:13 AM  

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


he's black?
a secret muslim?
a democrat??

it is interesting how the world flip-flops depending on who is in the white house.

WHY do deficits matter again?
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha
 
2012-10-05 11:40:28 AM  
From what I recall of course
 
2012-10-05 11:43:05 AM  

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

Well, if you believe that it isn't I have some swampland to sell you.

If I make a joke about selling you something I don't own or is worthless then I must be right. Right?


Right.
 
2012-10-05 11:44:29 AM  

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


Aw, bless your heart.
 
2012-10-05 11:48:12 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-05 11:49:10 AM  

GAT_00: InspectorZero: If you all really believe unemployment is at 7.8%, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Of course it isn't. Seniors on retirement are not on the rolls. But comparing the U6 today to the U3 in 2008 is also dishonest.


Yes, and those that have given up looking for work, etc. But the real reason the government's cooked numbers show a decrease in unemployment today is because of "part time jobs for economic reasons" : Link
 
2012-10-05 11:50:48 AM  

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


It's always different when a Democrat is in office. Don't you know these things? The standard metrics that work under a Republican president completely fail under when we're in a Democratic administration.

The same goes for polls when they don't show a Republican ahead.
 
2012-10-05 11:50:51 AM  

InspectorZero: GAT_00: InspectorZero: If you all really believe unemployment is at 7.8%, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Of course it isn't. Seniors on retirement are not on the rolls. But comparing the U6 today to the U3 in 2008 is also dishonest.

Yes, and those that have given up looking for work, etc. But the real reason the government's cooked numbers show a decrease in unemployment today is because of "part time jobs for economic reasons" : Link


You may as well link to shadow stats for as much relation to reality that site has.
 
2012-10-05 11:53:57 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-05 11:54:41 AM  

InspectorZero: But the real reason the government's cooked numbers show a decrease in unemployment today is because of "part time jobs for economic reasons"


So in other words...there's a decrease in unemployment because people have jobs.

Hm. That's kinda weird.
 
2012-10-05 11:55:36 AM  

Lando Lincoln: InspectorZero: But the real reason the government's cooked numbers show a decrease in unemployment today is because of "part time jobs for economic reasons"

So in other words...there's a decrease in unemployment because people have jobs.

Hm. That's kinda weird.


Unexpected, ain't it?
 
2012-10-05 11:56:31 AM  

InspectorZero: cooked numbers


Uh huh. Got enough tinfoil over there?
 
2012-10-05 11:58:20 AM  
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

-It's only okay when Republicans mislead the public.
 
2012-10-05 12:02:18 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?


Was I too subtle? because that is what I implied.
 
2012-10-05 12:03:51 PM  

Lurking Fear: 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?

Was I too subtle? because that is what I implied.


Probably not. I'm sleep deprived.
 
2012-10-05 12:06:53 PM  

Fear_and_Loathing: It isn't that they have stopped, the Federal Gov't has just conviently swept them under the carpet.



Yep.  That's why I ignore these numbers completely.
 
Take my situation.  I run a small two person business (well one-and-a-half... my partner pretty much left and got a job, but sticks around and helps a bit and does get some consulting cash for that.)
 
I'm making maybe 1/3 of what I made for 10 years.  I'm not on any government program, but for all intents and purposes I'm unemployed.  Or I should be counted in some stat, as I'm not technically making ends meet.
 
I'm looking for a job in a different industry, but there's no way the government or any third-party polling agency would know this.  I pay taxes, so I'm counted as employed.  But only because I can make some money from whats left of our business.  But I consider that akin to "unemployment benefits" as it amounts to pretty much the same situation... enough money to barely scrape by for the time being.
 
Until you count people like me, I'm not listening to any "employment" numbers.
 
2012-10-05 12:08:51 PM  

downstairs: Fear_and_Loathing: It isn't that they have stopped, the Federal Gov't has just conviently swept them under the carpet.


Yep.  That's why I ignore these numbers completely.
 
Take my situation.  I run a small two person business (well one-and-a-half... my partner pretty much left and got a job, but sticks around and helps a bit and does get some consulting cash for that.)
 
I'm making maybe 1/3 of what I made for 10 years.  I'm not on any government program, but for all intents and purposes I'm unemployed.  Or I should be counted in some stat, as I'm not technically making ends meet.
 
I'm looking for a job in a different industry, but there's no way the government or any third-party polling agency would know this.  I pay taxes, so I'm counted as employed.  But only because I can make some money from whats left of our business.  But I consider that akin to "unemployment benefits" as it amounts to pretty much the same situation... enough money to barely scrape by for the time being.
 
Until you count people like me, I'm not listening to any "employment" numbers.


Your claim is that you are employed but not REALLY employed because you don't make as much money as you would like?

Hell, if that's the metric, the employment percentage rate of the WORLD is microscopic.
 
2012-10-05 12:09:53 PM  

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



I'll say its a damn neat coincidence since earlier this week economists were predicting 8.2% with the same job growth.  But, I'm glad it went down.  If someone manipulated the numbers I'll never know.  Not my area of knowledge, but it came at the perfect time politically for Obama...and hopefully is accurate and works for the country as well. 
 
The headline mixes different types of numbers.  Its good for context, but its apples and bannanas.
 
2012-10-05 12:11:00 PM  

downstairs: Until you count people like me, I'm not listening to any "employment" numbers.


I'm fairly certain you are counted as "employed" seeing as how you have " job and collect a paycheck.

How much you make is irrelevant to you having a job. You looking for another job is irrelevant. You "considering" your paycheck to be "unemployment benefits" is just stupid.
 
2012-10-05 12:13:46 PM  

GAT_00: You know, if Republicans had only been willing to extend unemployment benefits further, unemployment would be higher because more people would still be on the rolls.


They really screwed up their cunning plan here. Imagine their spin if all of those people were still on unemployment?

1) obama's fault
2) oh my god!!! the numbers are so high!!!!
 
2012-10-05 12:13:50 PM  

Via Infinito: It looks like the difference between the original article and this follow-up is whether they count part time work as employment.

I really don't understand the disconnect. A job is a job. I loved my last part time job. I was definitely employed. I made money, I paid taxes. Why wouldn't that count as employment? And why would "counting the part timers" be seen as fudging the numbers?



"underemployed" is a major issue in economics.  It hurts the economy in many ways:
 
Someone who's true value is, say, $100,000/year making $25k...
 
- Is paying less taxes now, so that's less money for the government
 
- Was living within their means for 10 years, and now suddenly is a burden on the system (bankrupcy may pass their debts on to others, foreclosure is good for no one, etc. etc. etc.)
 
A healthy economy doesn't just have X% "employed".  A healthy economy has a good % of people employed at a level ($$) that equates with their skillset.
 
2012-10-05 12:14:20 PM  

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


I'll say its a damn neat coincidence since earlier this week economists were predicting 8.2% with the same job growth.  But, I'm glad it went down.  If someone manipulated the numbers I'll never know.  Not my area of knowledge, but it came at the perfect time politically for Obama...and hopefully is accurate and works for the country as well. 
 
The headline mixes different types of numbers.  Its good for context, but its apples and bannanas.


According to Silver, the "economist/analyst predictions" are almost always off by an average of 70,000 jobs (and the range that makes that "average" is very wide).
 
2012-10-05 12:16:10 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Your claim is that you are employed but not REALLY employed because you don't make as much money as you would like?

Hell, if that's the metric, the employment percentage rate of the WORLD is microscopic.



Read my second post.  I'm not bitter here, this has nothing to do with what I "want".  I'm saying I'm worth $X and making <$X.  That's not good for the economy.  Hell, take me out of the equation if you have a problem with me making this personal.  Lots of people are in my situation.
 
2012-10-05 12:16:14 PM  

downstairs: Fear_and_Loathing: It isn't that they have stopped, the Federal Gov't has just conviently swept them under the carpet.


Yep.  That's why I ignore these numbers completely.
 
Take my situation.  I run a small two person business (well one-and-a-half... my partner pretty much left and got a job, but sticks around and helps a bit and does get some consulting cash for that.)
 
I'm making maybe 1/3 of what I made for 10 years.  I'm not on any government program, but for all intents and purposes I'm unemployed.  Or I should be counted in some stat, as I'm not technically making ends meet.
 
I'm looking for a job in a different industry, but there's no way the government or any third-party polling agency would know this.  I pay taxes, so I'm counted as employed.  But only because I can make some money from whats left of our business.  But I consider that akin to "unemployment benefits" as it amounts to pretty much the same situation... enough money to barely scrape by for the time being.
 
Until you count people like me, I'm not listening to any "employment" numbers.


WELL, at least we know why you are doing so poorly.
You are a farking retarded chimp.
Seriously. You want to be counted, but only if we count things YOUR way???
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

troll score: 2/10
 
2012-10-05 12:18:50 PM  

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


Self-assessment is not a scientific method.
 
2012-10-05 12:20:13 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Your claim is that you are employed but not REALLY employed because you don't make as much money as you would like?

Hell, if that's the metric, the employment percentage rate of the WORLD is microscopic.


If you work an hour a week, you are considered employed, heck if you work 15 minutes a week you are considered employed.  Even if you are still on unemployment, but get a parttime job, your benefits are docked, which is reasonable, but you are no longer unemployed.  Even if you are still getting partial benefits.  Most employers these days do not offer fulltime employment, they hold you under the hour cap for benefits, vacation, sick time and a reasonable wage.  They can do this because so many people are looking for work and desperate.  There is a big difference between having a job and feeling like you are owed more and trying to find a reasonable job and fend for yourself.
 
Even getting a response to an application, resume and cover letter doesn't even happen 98% of the time.  HR depts don't care and are tired of the onslot of applications for every opening.  In general they look at the first 5 or 10 applications and toss the rest.
 
2012-10-05 12:20:57 PM  

namatad: downstairs: Fear_and_Loathing: It isn't that they have stopped, the Federal Gov't has just conviently swept them under the carpet.


Yep.  That's why I ignore these numbers completely.
 
Take my situation.  I run a small two person business (well one-and-a-half... my partner pretty much left and got a job, but sticks around and helps a bit and does get some consulting cash for that.)
 
I'm making maybe 1/3 of what I made for 10 years.  I'm not on any government program, but for all intents and purposes I'm unemployed.  Or I should be counted in some stat, as I'm not technically making ends meet.
 
I'm looking for a job in a different industry, but there's no way the government or any third-party polling agency would know this.  I pay taxes, so I'm counted as employed.  But only because I can make some money from whats left of our business.  But I consider that akin to "unemployment benefits" as it amounts to pretty much the same situation... enough money to barely scrape by for the time being.
 
Until you count people like me, I'm not listening to any "employment" numbers.

WELL, at least we know why you are doing so poorly.
You are a farking retarded chimp.
Seriously. You want to be counted, but only if we count things YOUR way???
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

troll score: 2/10



No, just saying the underemployed should be counted.  I think that's an important metric.  Me being "counted" does nothing FOR me... just saying it helps the discussion.  For all of us.
 
Again, take me out of the discussion here.  I'm not bitter, nor do I feel slighted by the government.  Just giving a person anecdote on why the numbers are BS.
 
My personal situation... I'll manage that just fine over time.
 
2012-10-05 12:24:18 PM  

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?
 
2012-10-05 12:24:54 PM  

Fear_and_Loathing: Even getting a response to an application, resume and cover letter doesn't even happen 98% of the time. HR depts don't care and are tired of the onslot of applications for every opening. In general they look at the first 5 or 10 applications and toss the rest.


It never has.

I suspect that a lot of the folks who complain the loudest about these sorts of things never tried to get a job before the dot-com boom.

/networking has always, *always* been the best way to get the best jobs
 
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.comView Full Size


i.imgur.comView Full Size

 
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.orgView Full Size


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

growlersoftware.comView Full Size


For comparison
growlersoftware.comView Full Size


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.comView Full Size


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.orgView Full Size
 
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.
 
2012-10-05 03:06:59 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [pbs.twimg.com image 580x415]

[i.imgur.com image 380x179]


mrshowrules: 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 image 300x268]

Do you think Fartbongo is going to tell them to drop the U3 again before the last jobs report before the election?


i0.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2012-10-05 03:07:10 PM  

bulldg4life: Hey, I know, let's start comparing U3 and U6 and get really mad that nobody is reporting the REAL numbers


No, they can't even get them to release the transcripts, let alone the real numbers. And unions are killing this country.

*tries to keep a straight face*
 
2012-10-05 03:07:30 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-05 03:07:37 PM  

sprawl15: Noted conservatroll Jackson Herring scared out of yet another Fark thread!


Isn't it funny though, how things maybe change?
 
2012-10-05 03:08:48 PM  

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


Mittmentum!

harfobama.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2012-10-05 03:08:55 PM  

DamnYankees: The only way to ever make sense of these numbers is to use consistent parameters. As long as this is the system we use to judge these numbers, its the system we use. We need to accept that.


Yeah, this. The employment figures have gone up and down so much due to different metrics over the last ten years, the only thing we can be sure of is that some people are unemployed.

Pick a system and stick with it, even if it makes you look back, ffs!
 
2012-10-05 03:09:01 PM  
"You have to calculate the unemployment numbers diff'rently for nigrahs 'cause they isn't like white presidents"

Best if done in a Strother Martin voice...
 
2012-10-05 03:09:38 PM  
Hint: The very same thing was said under Reagan, Bush, Carter, and Bush.
 
2012-10-05 03:10:37 PM  
Methodology was never questioned when it suited their narrative. In fact, it was farking gospel truth proving that Fartnambla was farting away all the jobs.
 
2012-10-05 03:10:38 PM  
Unemployment under Romney is 47%.
 
2012-10-05 03:11:48 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.


Going by past performance* we can expect Romney to start talking about his tax rate again tomorrow.

Past performance is not a guarantee of future gains. The value of your investment may go down as well as up.
 
2012-10-05 03:12:09 PM  
U3, U4 and U5 all improved by 0.3%. U6 Stayed flat at 14%. That implies that more people are employed, but the net improvement in employment comes from part-time workers who would like to have a full-time job (methodology difference between U5 and U6). All in all, good news, but it could be better.
 
2012-10-05 03:12:13 PM  

lilbjorn: Unemployment under Romney is 47%.


That made me snort embarrassingly loud.
 
2012-10-05 03:12:31 PM  
Since we are telling stories to refute unemployment figures, I will add my own. I do not know a single person that is unemployed. I have many friends and my dad actively hires people at his company. I sell mortgages all day erryyday. We aren't cancelling loans because someone lost their job... It is quite the opposite, I'm seeing a trend of people switching companies where they are getting more pay. At this point it is easy to say that the unemployed are that way not because there are no jobs it is because they aren't looking hard enough. Compare this to 4 years ago when the sky was falling.
I'm on the ground floor of this rebound and I my wallet is loving every minute of it
 
2012-10-05 03:13:00 PM  

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


Pssst ... you don't get to decide what your "true value" is. The market does.
 
2012-10-05 03:13:04 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Methodology was never questioned when it suited their narrative. In fact, it was farking gospel truth proving that Fartnambla was farting away all the jobs.


That's what makes all the righteous indignation from the usual suspects so hilarious.

If the number had gone up, these same clowns would be crowing about them as definitive proof that Obama is a failure...
 
2012-10-05 03:14:30 PM  

lilbjorn: Unemployment under Romney is 47%.


3.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


Well, if people would just humble out and take jobs a few dollars an hour beneath them, everyone would be employed.

This is why we need to eliminate the minimum wage. Along with pornography.
 
2012-10-05 03:15:54 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Methodology was never questioned when it suited their narrative. In fact, it was farking gospel truth proving that Fartnambla was farting away all the jobs.


I don't know where people are getting this. Righties have been crowing about how we're actually turbo-farked because of how high U6 is and how low workforce participation is for months.

Sure, we didn't hear much from them about U6 during the Bush admin, but they've definitely been bringing it up for most of Obama's. They're just doing it a bit more loudly now that U3 doesn't look so bad.
 
2012-10-05 03:16:13 PM  
Why don't the unemployed just buy themselves a job?
 
2012-10-05 03:16:15 PM  

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!
 
2012-10-05 03:16:45 PM  
I see the Republican war on reality is breaching new fronts on the shores of Unamplyment numbers. Strong work folks, keep denying everything that doesn't fit The NarrativeTM
 
2012-10-05 03:17:01 PM  

whidbey: lilbjorn: Unemployment under Romney is 47%.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 350x250]

Well, if people would just humble out and take jobs a few dollars an hour beneath them, everyone would be employed.

This is why we need to eliminate the minimum wage. Along with pornography.


Also, the Terror Alert scale will now be replaced with my skin tones.
i2.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2012-10-05 03:17:09 PM  

keylock71: Heh... These numbers have got the GOP shills in a tizzy, haven't they?


There was one in the other thread that had a case of the vapors.
 
2012-10-05 03:17:37 PM  
I'm surprised the numbers aren't better on the expectation of regime change. Business folk I know have been hiring and ramping up production on the expectation that Obama will be thrown out of office.
 
2012-10-05 03:18:07 PM  

ratagorda: I do not know a single person that is unemployed. I have many friends and my dad actively hires people at his company. I sell mortgages all day erryyday


Please update us on your status if interest rates ever go back up.
 
2012-10-05 03:18:11 PM  

mrshowrules: keylock71: Heh... These numbers have got the GOP shills in a tizzy, haven't they?

There was one in the other thread that had a case of the vapors.


GIS

boston.comView Full Size
 
2012-10-05 03:19:04 PM  

Nabb1: 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?


Did you ever read a Dilbert comic where Dilbert announces that he doesn't like that oil-producing nations in the Middle East may be using some of that money to fund terrorism, and that he was going to change his own buying habits (or something along those lines) to try and make a difference? Dogbert then carefully explains how him doing so actually won't make any difference, after which Dilbert says "Well, maybe I just want to make a statement." Dogbert then replies "Yes, and the statement would be 'I don't understand what the word "fungible" means.'"

In a similar vein, the only statement being made by people voting third party in the US (or other places with similar electoral systems) would be "I don't understand game theory."
 
2012-10-05 03:19:23 PM  

thurstonxhowell: HotWingConspiracy: Methodology was never questioned when it suited their narrative. In fact, it was farking gospel truth proving that Fartnambla was farting away all the jobs.

I don't know where people are getting this. Righties have been crowing about how we're actually turbo-farked because of how high U6 is and how low workforce participation is for months.

Sure, we didn't hear much from them about U6 during the Bush admin, but they've definitely been bringing it up for most of Obama's. They're just doing it a bit more loudly now that U3 doesn't look so bad.


I don't recall this type of full court press, and I sure don't recall the conspiracy angle.
 
2012-10-05 03:19:37 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: I'm surprised the numbers aren't better on the expectation of regime change. Business folk I know have been hiring and ramping up production on the expectation that Obama will be thrown out of office.


Those business folk that you totally know are going to be disappointed.
 
2012-10-05 03:19:56 PM  
139 million jobs for 314 million people. Less than 1 in 2 Americas is employed. Is this the change we need?

Mitt Romney has a plan to put 100% of able-bodied Americans to work, regardless of age. Whether you're 8 or 80, you should be toiling away for a non-living wage with few benefits.

"I'm Romneybot and I validated this communication."
 
2012-10-05 03:20:07 PM  
Oooh, let's see what economic wizard Hot Air got to break down these numbers.

Ed Morrissey is an American conservative blogger, columnist, motivational speaker, and talk show host. He goes by the nickname Captain Ed

Sweet merciful crap. Conservative bloggers really are the awkward kid everyone made fun of in high school aren't they?
 
2012-10-05 03:20:23 PM  
GOP when unemployment was at 10.1% about two years ago: "See, Obama has done a horrible job at fixing the employment situation. The 10.1% is proof that things have gotten worse under his communist regime."

GOP today about the 7.8% rate: "This is an outrage. This number is fake."
 
2012-10-05 03:20:37 PM  
More people are working. You can either admit that, or you can admit that you're really pissed off that the country is improving because it might hurt your 'team' politically.

Which is it?
 
2012-10-05 03:21:07 PM  

impaler: 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.


Wait, I thought Bush was a criminal master and Cheney was ineptly legendary.
 
2012-10-05 03:21:38 PM  

mrshowrules: keylock71: Heh... These numbers have got the GOP shills in a tizzy, haven't they?

There was one in the other thread that had a case of the vapors.


We're going to need some fainting couches in this one, I think...
 
2012-10-05 03:21:53 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: I know one that was cut off from unemployment and has been clinging on to everything he owns. He attributes to the number of people not on unemployment.

Here's my town compared to statewide. Unemployment is dropping for the state because people were kicked off unemployment after an internal audit, but Colorado Springs is still rising.

Our town is at 9.8%, and at least 50% of that is IT/Tech jobs. Additionally, you can see by the red line for Colorado, exactly when they got the results of the audit, because the line goes from 9.3% to 7.7%... in an effort to make the national average look better. That many jobs weren't found, they just ended Unemployment for thousands of people over a 2 month period.


I call bullshiat.
 
2012-10-05 03:22:11 PM  

odinsposse: Oooh, let's see what economic wizard Hot Air got to break down these numbers.

Ed Morrissey is an American conservative blogger, columnist, motivational speaker, and talk show host. He goes by the nickname Captain Ed

Sweet merciful crap. Conservative bloggers really are the awkward kid everyone made fun of in high school aren't they?


More like Special Ed amirite?
 
2012-10-05 03:22:25 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: I'm surprised the numbers aren't better on the expectation of regime change. Business folk I know have been hiring and ramping up production on the expectation that Obama will be thrown out of office.


I'm surprised that you haven't been arrested on fowl necrophilia charges.
 
2012-10-05 03:22:37 PM  
The Romney Recovery begins.
 
2012-10-05 03:22:51 PM  

lilbjorn: Hint: The very same thing was said under Reagan, Bush, Carter, and Bush.


You said Bush twice.
 
2012-10-05 03:24:06 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!


Heh...
 
2012-10-05 03:24:26 PM  

odinsposse: Oooh, let's see what economic wizard Hot Air got to break down these numbers.

Ed Morrissey is an American conservative blogger, columnist, motivational speaker, and talk show host. He goes by the nickname Captain Ed

Sweet merciful crap. Conservative bloggers really are the awkward kid everyone made fun of in high school aren't they?


He was better with The Smiths.
 
2012-10-05 03:24:45 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: I'm surprised the numbers aren't better on the expectation of regime change. Business folk I know have been hiring and ramping up production on the expectation that Obama will be thrown out of office.


The Romney recovery has already kicked in.
 
2012-10-05 03:24:50 PM  

odinsposse: Oooh, let's see what economic wizard Hot Air got to break down these numbers.

Ed Morrissey is an American conservative blogger, columnist, motivational speaker, and talk show host. He goes by the nickname Captain Ed

Sweet merciful crap. Conservative bloggers really are the awkward kid everyone made fun of in high school aren't they?


j.wigflip.comView Full Size
 
2012-10-05 03:25:05 PM  

jst3p: HST's Dead Carcass: I know one that was cut off from unemployment and has been clinging on to everything he owns. He attributes to the number of people not on unemployment.

Here's my town compared to statewide. Unemployment is dropping for the state because people were kicked off unemployment after an internal audit, but Colorado Springs is still rising.

Our town is at 9.8%, and at least 50% of that is IT/Tech jobs. Additionally, you can see by the red line for Colorado, exactly when they got the results of the audit, because the line goes from 9.3% to 7.7%... in an effort to make the national average look better. That many jobs weren't found, they just ended Unemployment for thousands of people over a 2 month period.

I call bullshiat.


Yeah! Hell, they should come to the Twin Cities. We have about a 2-3% unemployment for programmers/IT. Companies are having a real hard time finding people to hire.
 
2012-10-05 03:26:01 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: I'm surprised the numbers aren't better on the expectation of regime change. Business folk I know have been hiring and ramping up production on the expectation that Obama will be thrown out of office.


Do people really think like this? I mean I know he is trolling but do you think he believes it?
 
2012-10-05 03:26:20 PM  

Whiskey Pete: lilbjorn: Hint: The very same thing was said under Reagan, Bush, Carter, and Bush.

You said Bush twice.


He must be a guy who lived through the 70s. They love Bush.
 
2012-10-05 03:26:35 PM  

DamnYankees: The only way to ever make sense of these numbers is to use consistent parameters. As long as this is the system we use to judge these numbers, its the system we use. We need to accept that.


Agreed. I hate the bullshiat numbers, but if they're calculated using the same bullshiat as last month and the months before then, then it's consistent data... I mean bullshiat. Regardless, it works.
 
2012-10-05 03:26:41 PM  
Welp, at least you had one day of hope derpsters! You should have savored it while you could!
 
2012-10-05 03:26:42 PM  

Biological Ali: Nabb1: 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?

Did you ever read a Dilbert comic where Dilbert announces that he doesn't like that oil-producing nations in the Middle East may be using some of that money to fund terrorism, and that he was going to change his own buying habits (or something along those lines) to try and make a difference? Dogbert then carefully explains how him doing so actually won't make any difference, after which Dilbert says "Well, maybe I just want to make a statement." Dogbert then replies "Yes, and the statement would be 'I don't understand what the word "fungible" means.'"

In a similar vein, the only statement being made by people voting third party in the US (or other places with similar electoral systems) would be "I don't understand game theory."


Oh, I understand it just fine. I just don't care to play. I'm not going to blindly pull the lever for a Republican or Democrat because I'm conditioned to accept that. I've voted for Republicans, Democrats, Reform Party, Libertarians, and I think I once voted Green for some office or another. I skipped 2000, voted Badnarik '04, Ron Paul as a third party candidate in '08 (he was on the ballot in Louisiana on the "Tax Reform Party" ticket or something) and will vote for Gary Johnson this time around. I know it won't affect the outcome. Neither would changing my vote to Obama or Romney.
 
2012-10-05 03:26:46 PM  

jst3p: Noam Chimpsky: I'm surprised the numbers aren't better on the expectation of regime change. Business folk I know have been hiring and ramping up production on the expectation that Obama will be thrown out of office.

Do people really think like this? I mean I know he is trolling but do you think he believes it?


He doesn't care. He just wants a few dumbass lurkers to believe it.
 
2012-10-05 03:26:57 PM  

WizardofToast: 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.


Yes, It's the Conservation of Derp Principle. it's a version of Newton's Third Law of Motion. "For every action, there is a opposite and derpier reaction."
 
2012-10-05 03:27:23 PM  
Ok, so your unemployment benefits ran out. This sounds like that means you have absolutely no income coming in. Why would you just...stop looking for work? Hunger is a much more powerful motivator than discouragement. Oh woe is me, I can't find a job, I'm just going to stop looking and let my family starve. Hell, maybe we'll eat the cat next week. That's dumb. I mean, I'm sure it happens, but not in any percentage worth trying to count.

Wait, are people unemployed but newly enrolled on welfare counted? It's the only sense I can make out of it.
 
2012-10-05 03:27:56 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.


Well go ahead, assume the position
 
2012-10-05 03:27:59 PM  

GameSprocket: Yeah! Hell, they should come to the Twin Cities. We have about a 2-3% unemployment for programmers/IT. Companies are having a real hard time finding people to hire.


I've been hearing this in several areas of the country, from various Farkers... I have to ask... What specific industries/languages/specialties? If I can convince my boss to consider moving us toward contracting, maybe I'll finally get a damn raise...
 
2012-10-05 03:28:11 PM  

gadian: Ok, so your unemployment benefits ran out. This sounds like that means you have absolutely no income coming in. Why would you just...stop looking for work? Hunger is a much more powerful motivator than discouragement. Oh woe is me, I can't find a job, I'm just going to stop looking and let my family starve. Hell, maybe we'll eat the cat next week. That's dumb. I mean, I'm sure it happens, but not in any percentage worth trying to count.

Wait, are people unemployed but newly enrolled on welfare counted? It's the only sense I can make out of it.


You seem to be neglecting the fact that BOOMERS ARE RETIRING.
 
2012-10-05 03:28:14 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.


i.qkme.meView Full Size


/gonna vote Green
//not in a swing state
 
2012-10-05 03:28:30 PM  
pjmedia.comView Full Size


aei-ideas.orgView Full Size
 
2012-10-05 03:28:46 PM  

DamnYankees: The only way to ever make sense of these numbers is to use consistent parameters. As long as this is the system we use to judge these numbers, its the system we use. We need to accept that.


They think that by attacking the accuracy of the measurement, they somehow impeach it's accuracy as a metric.
Dumb people are dumb.
 
2012-10-05 03:29:05 PM  

GameSprocket: jst3p: HST's Dead Carcass: I know one that was cut off from unemployment and has been clinging on to everything he owns. He attributes to the number of people not on unemployment.

Here's my town compared to statewide. Unemployment is dropping for the state because people were kicked off unemployment after an internal audit, but Colorado Springs is still rising.

Our town is at 9.8%, and at least 50% of that is IT/Tech jobs. Additionally, you can see by the red line for Colorado, exactly when they got the results of the audit, because the line goes from 9.3% to 7.7%... in an effort to make the national average look better. That many jobs weren't found, they just ended Unemployment for thousands of people over a 2 month period.

I call bullshiat.

Yeah! Hell, they should come to the Twin Cities. We have about a 2-3% unemployment for programmers/IT. Companies are having a real hard time finding people to hire.


Yeah, in the northern Denver metro we can't keep contractors, they keep getting full time gigs elsewhere. I have friends in the bay area and IT seems strong there too. In June it was reported that the IT unemployment rate was half the national average.

Link

This guy must be including Geek Squad people as "IT".
 
2012-10-05 03:29:08 PM  
How do you revise jobs upward months later based on a survey you took months ago?

Wouldn't you know when you made the survey the exact number based on the people reporting in the survey?

Did someone leave a bag of August surveys in the hall closet and not find them until yesterday?
 
2012-10-05 03:29:27 PM  

vpb: And I'll bet Bush is responsible for the jobs added because Obama was just implementing plans that he set up, right?


Unlikely.

More like these jobs are being created due to business owners realizing that Romney is going to open America up for business again.
 
2012-10-05 03:29:39 PM  
Man, that is some serious quote mining. You've been saving that one.
 
2012-10-05 03:30:18 PM  

gadian: Ok, so your unemployment benefits ran out. This sounds like that means you have absolutely no income coming in. Why would you just...stop looking for work? Hunger is a much more powerful motivator than discouragement. Oh woe is me, I can't find a job, I'm just going to stop looking and let my family starve. Hell, maybe we'll eat the cat next week. That's dumb. I mean, I'm sure it happens, but not in any percentage worth trying to count.

Wait, are people unemployed but newly enrolled on welfare counted? It's the only sense I can make out of it.


Or they go live on their parent's couch for a while until they get a job. Or they are unemployed but their spouse is employed and they just downsize their lifestyle. Or they run out of benefits but have enough savings to keep going. There are lots of possible reasons.
 
2012-10-05 03:30:25 PM  

tomWright: [pjmedia.com image 850x481]

[www.aei-ideas.org image 801x491]


A Pajamas Media infographic? Seems credible, Shillnestro!
 
2012-10-05 03:30:36 PM  
if only derp and butthurt made jobs.
 
2012-10-05 03:31:02 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: thurstonxhowell: HotWingConspiracy: Methodology was never questioned when it suited their narrative. In fact, it was farking gospel truth proving that Fartnambla was farting away all the jobs.

I don't know where people are getting this. Righties have been crowing about how we're actually turbo-farked because of how high U6 is and how low workforce participation is for months.

Sure, we didn't hear much from them about U6 during the Bush admin, but they've definitely been bringing it up for most of Obama's. They're just doing it a bit more loudly now that U3 doesn't look so bad.

I don't recall this type of full court press, and I sure don't recall the conspiracy angle.


That's because there wasn't and there wasn't.

Reminds me of the Bush apologists hacks cum Post 2008 Fark Independents who claim they were worried about the deficit back when Bush was putting two wars and Medicare Part D on the credit card by sitting on their hand extra hard.
 
2012-10-05 03:31:27 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Why don't the unemployed just buy themselves a job?


They're lazy. They're even to lazy to ask their parents to call some of their big-name connections in business and politics.

Lazy bums.
 
2012-10-05 03:31:40 PM  

Giltric: How do you revise jobs upward months later based on a survey you took months ago?

Wouldn't you know when you made the survey the exact number based on the people reporting in the survey?

Did someone leave a bag of August surveys in the hall closet and not find them until yesterday?


The large upward revisions to August payrolls released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics this morning (with jobs data for September) drove conspiracy theorists wild. And they were strong, about three times the usual revision. But, as we pointed out in a report we sent to our clients earlier this week, this is a long-standing pattern. It almost always happens, whether there's an election coming up or not. Facts here:

August's gain was revised upward by 46,000, and July's by 40,000. Almost all the revisions, however, came from an upward revision of 101,000 to local government education in August before seasonal adjustment - a recurrent anomaly at this time of year that we wrote about in Wednesday's report. The concurrent seasonal adjustment technique distributes large changes like that backwards, so the gain was split between July and August in the adjusted numbers. Some excitable types are attributing the upward revision to political machinations, but this pattern has been around a long time. It's likely something is amiss in the BLS's collection process, and they are working on it. There shouldn't be a recurrent pattern of error like this. (Excitable types should also note that the birth/death model subtracted 9,000 jobs in September.)

-Philippa Dunne and Doug Henwood
 
2012-10-05 03:32:01 PM  

Giltric: How do you revise jobs upward months later based on a survey you took months ago?

Wouldn't you know when you made the survey the exact number based on the people reporting in the survey?

Did someone leave a bag of August surveys in the hall closet and not find them until yesterday?


Another Independent who didn't ever question Bush era employment numbers.

Suddenly Seymour - Obama has been promising free fried chicken to the Bureau of Labor Statistics!

//or falafel, depending on your adherence to Freeper mythology
 
2012-10-05 03:32:14 PM  
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.
 
2012-10-05 03:32:48 PM  

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.


As evidence for your assertion, I present yourself
 
2012-10-05 03:33:19 PM  

pacified: Doug Henwood


i1162.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2012-10-05 03:34:02 PM  
God almighty, it's a helicopter run entirely on right-wing spin and bullshiat.

The unemployment rate is not the number of people receiving unemployment compensation. It's the percentage of people actively looking, but unable, to find jobs.

If we were in job stagnation, you'd have a point - a dropping unemployment rate could signal people stopping their job searches out of despair. But we've been out of the jobs decline for over a year. It's not spectacular job growth, but you can't just claim, without evidence, that the drop in unemployment is due to people despairing when people are *actually getting new jobs*. Well, I mean, if you're a Republican you can claim anything, I guess, because you are a shameless asshole shill.
 
2012-10-05 03:34:50 PM  

Giltric: How do you revise jobs upward months later based on a survey you took months ago?

Wouldn't you know when you made the survey the exact number based on the people reporting in the survey?

Did someone leave a bag of August surveys in the hall closet and not find them until yesterday?


You'd think this was a large country or something!
 
2012-10-05 03:34:58 PM  
i1151.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2012-10-05 03:34:59 PM  

odinsposse: gadian: Ok, so your unemployment benefits ran out. This sounds like that means you have absolutely no income coming in. Why would you just...stop looking for work? Hunger is a much more powerful motivator than discouragement. Oh woe is me, I can't find a job, I'm just going to stop looking and let my family starve. Hell, maybe we'll eat the cat next week. That's dumb. I mean, I'm sure it happens, but not in any percentage worth trying to count.

Wait, are people unemployed but newly enrolled on welfare counted? It's the only sense I can make out of it.

Or they go live on their parent's couch for a while until they get a job. Or they are unemployed but their spouse is employed and they just downsize their lifestyle. Or they run out of benefits but have enough savings to keep going. There are lots of possible reasons.


The vast majority of those who are leaving the workforce now are retiring Boomers. And there will be a lot more in the next few years. This is one of many reasons why U3, U5, U6 are all metrics - not measurements. they indicate change, and they are being done the same way as they have been for a long while.
 
2012-10-05 03:35:17 PM  

pacified: if only derp and butthurt made jobs.


Image if it could harnessed by power plants...

The numbers aren't anything to break out the Champagne over, but the dial is slowly moving in the right direction.

It's rather telling how a small bit of good news for the country is being received by certain folks in this country.
 
2012-10-05 03:35:22 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: I'm surprised the numbers aren't better on the expectation of regime change. Business folk I know have been hiring and ramping up production on the expectation that Obama will be thrown out of office.


Surrrre.
 
2012-10-05 03:36:35 PM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: I'm surprised the numbers aren't better on the expectation of regime change. Business folk I know have been hiring and ramping up production on the expectation that Obama will be thrown out of office.

Surrrre.


1. 30% of Hillary voters support Romney
2. Silent majority
3. I don't remember what #3 was.
 
2012-10-05 03:37:59 PM  

Giltric: How do you revise jobs upward months later based on a survey you took months ago?

Wouldn't you know when you made the survey the exact number based on the people reporting in the survey?

Did someone leave a bag of August surveys in the hall closet and not find them until yesterday?


Link

As usual, simple explanation. No conspiracy.
 
2012-10-05 03:38:16 PM  
 
2012-10-05 03:38:39 PM  

DamnYankees: The only way to ever make sense of these numbers is to use consistent parameters. As long as this is the system we use to judge these numbers, its the system we use. We need to accept that.


That makes no sense at all. It like you don't even know the president is blah.
 
2012-10-05 03:38:59 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.


That also means in the year 2030 we can finally party hard. Right?
 
2012-10-05 03:39:05 PM  

Biological Ali: the only statement being made by people voting third party in the US (or other places with similar electoral systems) would be "I don't understand game theory."


I don't know what game theory has to do with the fact that my vote in my definitely not going to swing state doesn't stand a chance of changing anything. I'll vote for whoever the hell I feel like voting for.

I was gonna vote Libertarian, but the Libertarians I know managed to talk me out of it. Now I'm thinking Vermin Supreme. Or maybe Green. Depends how lulzy I'm feeling that day.
 
2012-10-05 03:39:09 PM  

coeyagi: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: I'm surprised the numbers aren't better on the expectation of regime change. Business folk I know have been hiring and ramping up production on the expectation that Obama will be thrown out of office.

Surrrre.

1. 30% of Hillary voters support Romney
2. Silent majority
3. I don't remember what #3 was.


Bradley Effect. October Surprise. Gibble, gobble, geeble.
 
2012-10-05 03:39:12 PM  

tomWright: coeyagi: tomWright: [pjmedia.com image 850x481]

[www.aei-ideas.org image 801x491]

A Pajamas Media infographic? Seems credible, Shillnestro!

Just sayin'

Some people are wondering why there are two such divergent numbers on employment. The reason is that there are actually two job surveys. One is based on asking establishments how many people are on their payroll, which initially covers roughly a third of all payroll employment. The second is based on asking households how many people in their family are working; the sample covers less than 1% of the population. Normal statistical variation guarantees that the two typically produce different results, though this month's difference was larger than usual. In addition, the two define employment differently. If somebody works two jobs, he will be counted twice by the payroll survey but just once by the household survey.

It could be legitimate, it could be politically shaded. The timing is suspicious


Without reading the link, you have me convinced that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is paid with proceeds from The Audacity of Hope.
 
2012-10-05 03:39:20 PM  

Nabb1: Oh, I understand it just fine. I just don't care to play. I'm not going to blindly pull the lever for a Republican or Democrat because I'm conditioned to accept that. I've voted for Republicans, Democrats, Reform Party, Libertarians, and I think I once voted Green for some office or another. I skipped 2000, voted Badnarik '04, Ron Paul as a third party candidate in '08 (he was on the ballot in Louisiana on the "Tax Reform Party" ticket or something) and will vote for Gary Johnson this time around. I know it won't affect the outcome. Neither would changing my vote to Obama or Romney.


The problem with voting third party in electoral systems such as the one in the US is that you're actually raising the probability (relative to a scenario where you voted sensibly) of the least desirable plausible option being elected. So in that sense you're actually doing worse than Dilbert - not only does your vote accomplish literally nothing positive, but it carries with it a negative expected return, with its magnitude dependent on how likely the least desirable plausible option being elected was to begin with.

You can talk up the third party's platforms to try and make them more popular, you can try to canvas for them and raise their profile at the grassroots level, that stuff is fine; you might actually make some small difference that way. But there is literally no sensible reason to actually vote for a party that you know will lose some particular election.
 
2012-10-05 03:39:28 PM  
I was recently on a hiring committe, and based on the interviews we did, I would estimate unemployment at 2%, max. It quickly became clear that almost everyone with any type of marketable skills is already employed. What we saw for the most part were a bunch of social rejects that, if they showed up to work at all, would break more than they fixed and cause more problems than they solved.
 
2012-10-05 03:39:45 PM  
Republicans sure do hate to hear good news for America.
 
2012-10-05 03:39:52 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-05 03:40:20 PM  
So we can add unemployment rate metric calculations to the list of things Republicans are suddenly concerned about when a black man is president. 

To go along with

Deficit Spending
Debt Ceiling Raises
Presidents Getting Glory for Military Triumphs Under Their Watch

Missing anything?
 
2012-10-05 03:40:41 PM  

tomWright: coeyagi: tomWright: [pjmedia.com image 850x481]

[www.aei-ideas.org image 801x491]

A Pajamas Media infographic? Seems credible, Shillnestro!

Just sayin'

Some people are wondering why there are two such divergent numbers on employment. The reason is that there are actually two job surveys. One is based on asking establishments how many people are on their payroll, which initially covers roughly a third of all payroll employment. The second is based on asking households how many people in their family are working; the sample covers less than 1% of the population. Normal statistical variation guarantees that the two typically produce different results, though this month's difference was larger than usual. In addition, the two define employment differently. If somebody works two jobs, he will be counted twice by the payroll survey but just once by the household survey.

It could be legitimate, it could be politically shaded. The timing is suspicious


They realease these numbers every month, same day. the timing is normal and customary.
YOU may be suspicious - the "timing" isn't.
 
2012-10-05 03:40:42 PM  
It's almost like there are several different metrics for unemployment, and if you lambast the one that doesn't include the people whose benefits have run out you're just going to look like a farking moron because we also track the number that does include those people and that number's going down too.
 
2012-10-05 03:41:04 PM  
The economy is finally starting to show signs of improvement and conservative trolls are OUTRAGED.

/Boy do they love America
 
2012-10-05 03:41:29 PM  

tomWright: The timing is suspicious


Yes. That report that is released every month sure has some questionable timing. You know what else is questionable? 0bambi is having his election during the work week, when many of us bootstrappy souls will be at work, but the 47%ers will be free to roam the streets and vote. I, for one, am dubious that this is a coincidence.
 
2012-10-05 03:41:31 PM  

InmanRoshi: So we can add unemployment rate metric calculations to the list of things Republicans are suddenly concerned about when a black man is president. 

To go along with

Deficit Spending
Debt Ceiling Raises
Presidents Getting Glory for Military Triumphs Under Their Watch

Missing anything?


The truth

LOL just kidding
 
2012-10-05 03:41:45 PM  

odinsposse: Conservative bloggers really are the awkward kid everyone made fun of in high school aren't they?


In fairness, the same could be said of most all bloggers, regardless of ideology.

/Former blogger
//Liberal
///You wouldn't know me; I was kind of obscure
 
2012-10-05 03:42:14 PM  

intelligent comment below: The economy is finally starting to show signs of improvement and conservative trolls are OUTRAGED.

/Boy do they love America


It's inconceivable, since Rush Limbaugh says Obama hates America, that anything under his Muslimpremacy would ever improve for America.
 
2012-10-05 03:42:43 PM  
U-3, U-6. Whatever. The long-term trend is that all of the numbers are getting better. U-1 through U-6 are, by-and-large, decreasing as a trend. Sure they tick up here and there. But the overall trend-line is downward.

You can certainly pick any one of those numbers, and point to just the magnitude, to suit your narrative. But if you were to put the graph up of that measure you'd probably then have to talk about how it's in general decline.
 
2012-10-05 03:42:50 PM  

coeyagi: 1. 30% of Hillary voters support Romney
2. Silent majority
3. I don't remember what #3 was.


I'm kinda upset because, as I sit here, I can't remember what #3 was either....

I've got "let me give you some statisticals
1) 30% of hillary supporters for mccain
2) silent majority
3) palin?

------
I do seem to remember the "if there were three parties, would every state get three senators"
 
2012-10-05 03:43:26 PM  

Jim_Callahan: It's almost like there are several different metrics for unemployment, and if you lambast the one that doesn't include the people whose benefits have run out you're just going to look like a farking moron because we also track the number that does include those people and that number's going down too.


Anyway - the Boomers are retiring, and large numbers of people are going to be "dropping out" of the workforce in the next few years - nothing to do with anybody's benefits running out.
 
2012-10-05 03:43:42 PM  

Biological Ali: Nabb1: Oh, I understand it just fine. I just don't care to play. I'm not going to blindly pull the lever for a Republican or Democrat because I'm conditioned to accept that. I've voted for Republicans, Democrats, Reform Party, Libertarians, and I think I once voted Green for some office or another. I skipped 2000, voted Badnarik '04, Ron Paul as a third party candidate in '08 (he was on the ballot in Louisiana on the "Tax Reform Party" ticket or something) and will vote for Gary Johnson this time around. I know it won't affect the outcome. Neither would changing my vote to Obama or Romney.

The problem with voting third party in electoral systems such as the one in the US is that you're actually raising the probability (relative to a scenario where you voted sensibly) of the least desirable plausible option being elected. So in that sense you're actually doing worse than Dilbert - not only does your vote accomplish literally nothing positive, but it carries with it a negative expected return, with its magnitude dependent on how likely the least desirable plausible option being elected was to begin with.

You can talk up the third party's platforms to try and make them more popular, you can try to canvas for them and raise their profile at the grassroots level, that stuff is fine; you might actually make some small difference that way. But there is literally no sensible reason to actually vote for a party that you know will lose some particular election.


I don't vote straight ticket. As I look down the ballot, I select each candidate based on which of the available choices most matches my political views. I will say that as the races become more local, my selection may factor in likelihood of winning, especially for city council or mayor, but at the level of President - and we all know Romney will carry Louisiana handily - I simply vote according to my conscience.
 
2012-10-05 03:44:26 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: He attributes to the number of people not on unemployment.


And unless he stopped looking for work, he would still be counted as "unemployed" in the Current Population Survey.

There's always a bunch of people who makes this mistake every month after the unemployment report comes out, so don't feel bad.
 
2012-10-05 03:44:30 PM  
I bet the math they use will be just fine if Romney gets elected.
 
2012-10-05 03:44:41 PM  
Anyone who has had to look for a job knows the Summer is one of the worst times. Everyone's on vacation at different times, there's the 4th and then whatever else is going on.

It's a crappy time to be looking. It's not as bad as perhaps Thanksgiving to Christmas, but it sucks pretty hard.
 
2012-10-05 03:45:49 PM  

trippdogg: I was recently on a hiring committe, and based on the interviews we did, I would estimate unemployment at 2%, max. It quickly became clear that almost everyone with any type of marketable skills is already employed. What we saw for the most part were a bunch of social rejects that, if they showed up to work at all, would break more than they fixed and cause more problems than they solved.


Among people with a Bachlors or higher we are at "normal" unemployment, 4.1% 

Link
 
2012-10-05 03:46:21 PM  

GhostFish: How does this make sense?


Not a requirement for the right.
 
2012-10-05 03:46:35 PM  

OrygunFarker: [i1151.photobucket.com image 511x327]


It's Fox News. Facts violate their ideology, so even something typically as black and white as a graph have to be "unfacted" a bit.
 
2012-10-05 03:47:30 PM  

GhostFish: Somebody please explain this to me.


GhostFish: How does this make sense?


You want an explanation for that?

Well, let's go with "lying doesn't matter as long as they win the presidency"
 
2012-10-05 03:48:08 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Biological Ali: the only statement being made by people voting third party in the US (or other places with similar electoral systems) would be "I don't understand game theory."

I don't know what game theory has to do with the fact that my vote in my definitely not going to swing state doesn't stand a chance of changing anything. I'll vote for whoever the hell I feel like voting for.

I was gonna vote Libertarian, but the Libertarians I know managed to talk me out of it. Now I'm thinking Vermin Supreme. Or maybe Green. Depends how lulzy I'm feeling that day.


What you're essentially saying though is, you live in a place where there's such a high probability of the election going one particular way that you don't even have to bother voting, and therefore you're going to do something that's the equivalent of not voting in that race. That's fair enough, but that would just bring you back to a Dilbert-level scenario where you're merely accomplishing nothing (though strictly speaking, there still would be a negative expected return; it would just be much smaller than if you were in a swing state).
 
2012-10-05 03:48:59 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.


THe BLS is not part of the Administration you idiot. If they had the ability to lie why wouldn't they say Unemployment is at 6%, last month?
 
2012-10-05 03:49:14 PM  

GhostFish: Noam Chimpsky: Business folk I know have been hiring and ramping up production on the expectation that Obama will be thrown out of office.

These business folk make business decisions based on hopes and dreams and not factual data like trends in polls?

They don't sound like very good business folk.


It's a gamble, without question, but it pays off nicely if you get out ahead of the competition before an economic boom. I'd say it's a good gamble because the damage you'll incur by an Obama victory is less than the benefit incurred by a Romney victory since downsizing and firing is relatively painless after an Obama victory if that should happen. You are basically gambling a few months worth of capital for a few years worth of profits by jumping the gun.
 
2012-10-05 03:50:23 PM  
I don't typically go to HotAir for an analysis of anything reality-based.
 
2012-10-05 03:50:54 PM  

Biological Ali: there is literally no sensible reason to actually vote for a party that you know will lose some particular election.


I'm in the booth anyway so that I can vote in House, Senate, and state elections. Since I'm in there, I might as well vote for President. My vote would be more valuable in raising the profile of a third party than it would be to either major party, or it would at least make me smile a bit to write-in Vermin Supreme.

Obama carried my state by more than 20 points in 2008 and he's projected to do it again. Voting for a major party serves no purpose for me. Voting for a third party likely serves no purpose, either, but it's what I'm gonna do.

Swing state voters, please ignore the above. Vote for the candidate who might win that you dislike the least.
 
2012-10-05 03:51:21 PM  

GhostFish: Somebody please explain this to me.

According to the right, Obama is an incompetent empty suit and this was demonstrated in the debates.
Also according to the right, Obama is a manipulative mastermind that has his insidious tendrils in every government bureau and department.

How does this make sense?
I've only ever seen this combination of features in Saturday morning cartoon villains like Skeletor and Snidely Whiplash.


See, if he was a compentent evil masterming the uneployment rate woulde reported as 6% but since he is incompetant he only reports 7.8%.
 
2012-10-05 03:51:34 PM  
Just wait until WND notices that this unemployment report is full of ARABIC NUMERALS.
 
2012-10-05 03:53:12 PM  

bulldg4life: I'm kinda upset because, as I sit here, I can't remember what #3 was either....


1 in 7 undecided.
 
2012-10-05 03:53:41 PM  

Biological Ali: What you're essentially saying though is, you live in a place where there's such a high probability of the election going one particular way that you don't even have to bother voting, and therefore you're going to do something that's the equivalent of not voting in that race. That's fair enough, but that would just bring you back to a Dilbert-level scenario where you're merely accomplishing nothing (though strictly speaking, there still would be a negative expected return; it would just be much smaller than if you were in a swing state).


I still don't see how your voting for Obromney is any more meaningful than voting for a third party. I fully understand the concept you are expressing, but from a practical matter, I don't see the benefit in changing my one, largely ineffective vote for a presidential candidate from a third party to one of the two major parties. I don't live in a swing state, so really, my voting for Obama (since Romney is projected to win Louisiana) is no more or less influential in the outcome than voting for Gary Johnson.
 
2012-10-05 03:54:06 PM  

coeyagi: intelligent comment below: The economy is finally starting to show signs of improvement and conservative trolls are OUTRAGED.

/Boy do they love America

It's inconceivable, since Rush Limbaugh says Obama hates America, that anything under his Muslimpremacy would ever improve for America.



I haven't seen this much outrage from the right since 0bama announced the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
 
2012-10-05 03:54:46 PM  

GhostFish: Somebody please explain this to me.

According to the right, Obama is an incompetent empty suit and this was demonstrated in the debates.
Also according to the right, Obama is a manipulative mastermind that has his insidious tendrils in every government bureau and department.


He's also a Nazi Marxist Muslim [racist] Christian Pacifist Warmonger.

HE IS EVERYTHING THEY WANT HIM TO BE.

Why do you think they hate him even more when he does something they approve of? It ruins their little bullshiat narrative.

Getting Bin Laden just made them even more pissed, because he was taunting them by doing what he said he would do.
 
2012-10-05 03:57:46 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-05 03:58:44 PM  
Conservatives: No good news allowed!

If it is good news, it CAN'T be true. Conservatives are so busy counting on the United States to collapse, they just HATE that people might be doing better.

farking bunch of un-American pigs.
 
2012-10-05 03:58:45 PM  

GhostFish: Somebody please explain this to me.

According to the right, Obama is an incompetent empty suit and this was demonstrated in the debates.
Also according to the right, Obama is a manipulative mastermind that has his insidious tendrils in every government bureau and department.

How does this make sense?
I've only ever seen this combination of features in Saturday morning cartoon villains like Skeletor and Snidely Whiplash.


I would have gone with Cobra Commander, but still... very apt!
 
2012-10-05 03:59:59 PM  
A nice little war with Iran will get those unemployment numbers down (in the M-I-C, elsewhere, not so much)

/toss a few bombs at Tel Aviv for good measure.
 
2012-10-05 04:00:34 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: GhostFish: Somebody please explain this to me.

According to the right, Obama is an incompetent empty suit and this was demonstrated in the debates.
Also according to the right, Obama is a manipulative mastermind that has his insidious tendrils in every government bureau and department.

He's also a Nazi Marxist Muslim [racist] Christian Pacifist Warmonger.

HE IS EVERYTHING THEY WANT HIM TO BE.

Why do you think they hate him even more when he does something they approve of? It ruins their little bullshiat narrative.

Getting Bin Laden just made them even more pissed, because he was taunting them by doing what he said he would do.


Take a little walk to the edge of town Go across the tracks Where the viaduct looms, like a bird of doom As it shifts and cracks Where secrets lie in the border fires, in the humming wires Hey man, you know you're never coming back Past the square, past the bridge, past the mills, past the stacks On a gathering storm comes a tall handsome man In a dusty black coat with a red right hand
He'll wrap you in his arms, tell you that you've been a good boy He'll rekindle all the dreams it took you a lifetime to destroy He'll reach deep into the hole, heal your shrinking soul But there won't be a single thing That you can do. He's a god, he's a man, he's a ghost, he's a guru They're whispering his name through this disappearing land But hidden in his coat is a red right hand
You ain't got no money? He'll get you some You ain't got no car? He'll get you one You ain't have no self-respect, you feel like an insect Well don't you worry buddy, cause here he comes Through the ghettos and the barrio and the bowery and the slum A shadow is cast wherever he stands Stacks of green paper in his red right hand
You'll see him in your nightmares, you'll see him in your dreams He'll appear out of nowhere but he ain't what he seems You'll see him in your head, on the TV screen And hey buddy, I'm warning you to turn it off He's a ghost, he's a god, he's a man, he's a guru You're one microscopic cog in his catastrophic plan Designed and directed by his red right hand

Nick Cave
 
2012-10-05 04:00:50 PM  

bulldg4life: coeyagi: 1. 30% of Hillary voters support Romney
2. Silent majority
3. I don't remember what #3 was.

I'm kinda upset because, as I sit here, I can't remember what #3 was either....

I've got "let me give you some statisticals
1) 30% of hillary supporters for mccain
2) silent majority
3) palin?

------
I do seem to remember the "if there were three parties, would every state get three senators"


I think it was '7 out of 10 undecideds'?
 
2012-10-05 04:00:56 PM  
What are they saying over at unskewedemploymentreports.com?
 
2012-10-05 04:01:34 PM  
how much more recovery can we take
 
2012-10-05 04:01:48 PM  

wooden_badger: /toss a few bombs at Tel Aviv for good measure.



How about at your house instead?
 
2012-10-05 04:03:06 PM  

Nabb1: I don't vote straight ticket. As I look down the ballot, I select each candidate based on which of the available choices most matches my political views. I will say that as the races become more local, my selection may factor in likelihood of winning, especially for city council or mayor, but at the level of President - and we all know Romney will carry Louisiana handily - I simply vote according to my conscience.


Sure, but at that point you might as well write in your own name - because after all, who could be closer to your conscience regarding the issues than yourself? And, of course, you'd have the same probability of carrying the state too.

The other thing to consider, though, is the popular vote. Not that it has any legal bearing in the US, but there is a sense of a "mandate" based on popular vote margins. Since the important number there is the difference between the two main opposition parties, voting for one of them could chip away at the mandate of the least favourable of the two (should they win), or add to the mandate of their opponents (should they lose).
 
2012-10-05 04:03:16 PM  
Thanks to all of our abortion bills we created once we took over the House in 2010... and us rejecting all of the job bills the President wanted, the unemployment rate finally fell below 8%. I'm so glad that I directly helped with the declining of the unemployment rate, I'm crying from the excitement
addictinginfo.orgView Full Size
 
2012-10-05 04:03:32 PM  

paygun: how much more recovery can we take


Yeah, this mechanic is too slow - let's give the keys back to the guys that wrecked the car to begin with!
 
2012-10-05 04:04:25 PM  

paygun: how much more recovery can we take


Pretty soon, evil Obama is going to have all those people forced to work, instead sucking on the government teat. What a MONSTER.
 
2012-10-05 04:05:22 PM  

thurstonxhowell: I was gonna vote Libertarian, but the Libertarians I know managed to talk me out of it. Now I'm thinking Vermin Supreme. Or maybe Green. Depends how lulzy I'm feeling that day.


You can't vote for a Taco Bell entre.
 
2012-10-05 04:07:20 PM  

foo monkey: What are they saying over at unskewedemploymentreports.com?


i.qkme.meView Full Size
 
2012-10-05 04:09:36 PM  

GameSprocket: jst3p: HST's Dead Carcass: I know one that was cut off from unemployment and has been clinging on to everything he owns. He attributes to the number of people not on unemployment.

Here's my town compared to statewide. Unemployment is dropping for the state because people were kicked off unemployment after an internal audit, but Colorado Springs is still rising.

Our town is at 9.8%, and at least 50% of that is IT/Tech jobs. Additionally, you can see by the red line for Colorado, exactly when they got the results of the audit, because the line goes from 9.3% to 7.7%... in an effort to make the national average look better. That many jobs weren't found, they just ended Unemployment for thousands of people over a 2 month period.

I call bullshiat.

Yeah! Hell, they should come to the Twin Cities. We have about a 2-3% unemployment for programmers/IT. Companies are having a real hard time finding people to hire.


Give CTG a call, they have some guys down in Rochester that I'm sure would be happy to move north.
 
2012-10-05 04:11:12 PM  

thurstonxhowell: I'm in the booth anyway so that I can vote in House, Senate, and state elections. Since I'm in there, I might as well vote for President. My vote would be more valuable in raising the profile of a third party than it would be to either major party, or it would at least make me smile a bit to write-in Vermin Supreme.

Obama carried my state by more than 20 points in 2008 and he's projected to do it again. Voting for a major party serves no purpose for me. Voting for a third party likely serves no purpose, either, but it's what I'm gonna do.


As I mentioned in my response to Nabb1, there's also the national popular vote to consider. True, this kind of "mandate" may have no legal bearing in the US, but the same applies to the "profile" of a third party loser. The former, however, may be relevant (due to various political reasons) to the ease with which the winning party can execute its national agenda.
 
2012-10-05 04:13:24 PM  

theknuckler_33: bulldg4life: coeyagi: 1. 30% of Hillary voters support Romney
2. Silent majority
3. I don't remember what #3 was.

I'm kinda upset because, as I sit here, I can't remember what #3 was either....

I've got "let me give you some statisticals
1) 30% of hillary supporters for mccain
2) silent majority
3) palin?

------
I do seem to remember the "if there were three parties, would every state get three senators"

I think it was '7 out of 10 undecideds'?


madmann.comView Full Size
 
2012-10-05 04:14:13 PM  
verminsupreme.comView Full Size
 
2012-10-05 04:14:14 PM  
I love it Drew

Main page = Jobless rate is down to 7.8% Romney still to be unemployed next month (spiffy)

hidden over on the polictics tab = 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 (followup)
 
2012-10-05 04:16:14 PM  

impaler: Didn't I already post this?


Yes you did, but the gains do not make a substantive difference to the number that lost jobs.  One job is a gain, but the layoffs are still happening and the growth is painfully slow.  People still want work and the dumping of jobs has not been met by the paltry addition of jobs.
 
2012-10-05 04:17:08 PM  

vegasj: I love it Drew

Main page = Jobless rate is down to 7.8% Romney still to be unemployed next month (spiffy)

hidden over on the polictics tab = 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 (followup)



That's because this link is from Hot Air, which just like your head, is full of hot air
 
2012-10-05 04:17:34 PM  
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.
 
2012-10-05 04:20:02 PM  

tony41454: Also, 1.1 million people have disappeared from the labor force during the past year. How does that happen?


I find it unendingly humorous that you don't realize baby boomers are retiring at record rates...
 
2012-10-05 04:20:32 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-05 04:21:37 PM  

vegasj: I love it Drew

Main page = Jobless rate is down to 7.8% Romney still to be unemployed next month (spiffy)

hidden over on the polictics tab = 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 (followup)


It was probably due to some minority somewhere amirite?
 
2012-10-05 04:21:37 PM  

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.


Wow, there's a lot of stupid crammed in here.
 
2012-10-05 04:22:58 PM  
And once again, Allen West has become the unofficial voice of the Republican Party, and wild conspiracy theories have become the common currency.
 
2012-10-05 04:23:46 PM  
Hot air indeed
 
2012-10-05 04:24:15 PM  

paygun: how much more recovery can we take


Well, we haven't reached food riots yet.
 
2012-10-05 04:25:48 PM  
 
2012-10-05 04:26:19 PM  

jst3p: theknuckler_33: bulldg4life: coeyagi: 1. 30% of Hillary voters support Romney
2. Silent majority
3. I don't remember what #3 was.

I'm kinda upset because, as I sit here, I can't remember what #3 was either....

I've got "let me give you some statisticals
1) 30% of hillary supporters for mccain
2) silent majority
3) palin?

------
I do seem to remember the "if there were three parties, would every state get three senators"

I think it was '7 out of 10 undecideds'?

[www.madmann.com image 750x600]


Ach! I knew it was 'undecideds', I just forgot the statistical.
 
2012-10-05 04:27:05 PM  

BSABSVR: It was probably due to some minority somewhere amirite?


That's racist. Just because Obama is clearly directly to blame for this, that's no reason to bring up the nature of his parentage!
 
2012-10-05 04:28:30 PM  

BSABSVR: It was probably due to some minority somewhere amirite?


You're probably correct. They stole the main page linker for the followups

 
2012-10-05 04:29:25 PM  

Fear_and_Loathing: Yeah that is the lie, if you run out of benefits, you no longer are looking.  Kind of an odd jump in logic.  My state has the second highest unemployment in the Nation at 10.7 percent statewide.  Job fairs routinely bring in 4000 or more people to look in a single day.  Many are officially not lo9oking for work.  It isn't that they have stopped, the Federal Gov't has just conviently swept them under the carpet.  The Gov't has given up on them, so they cease to exist, they have not given up on looking for jobs.
 
The state EDC gave a sweetheart deal to a sports star to move his company and it was tied to creating 400 jobs.  After 2 years, he had filled 200 jobs almost all from people he moved into the state from other states.  Then he aquired a company in Maryland with 400 employees.  This April he went bankrupt, laid off the 200 transients and the 400 in another state. But that is considered job creation.
 
We got a lot of stimulus money, we have some very nice roads now.  The money went to the largest businesses in the state.  They hired few workers and those they hired were temp jobs.  But the companies made a healthy profit.  Job creation almost nil.  But as I said, some nice back roads are very nice now.
 
The state now wants to have a fullfledged Casino.  Job creation, as long as the Indians don't own it.  I live very close to the two largest Casinos in the Western Hemisphere.  Where did most of the workforce come from?  Casino states.  Not local people.  Casinos are smart, they want people who know the business, have the skills and know the grind.  They don't want to train 1000's of workers.  They are a business.  Shipping in a whole workforce from out of state is not job creation.
 
My own employer got state grants that included hiring goals.  They could not make the hiring goals.  So they laid off expensive employees so they could hire to meet the goals.  Kind of like the big Red Sox trade this year to open up payroll.  They hired a lot of people wit ...


So..... you're saying that trickle-down economics doesn't work?
 
2012-10-05 04:29:34 PM  
so the administration has ways of juicing the numbers. it's to be expected. politics is hardball.
 
2012-10-05 04:29:37 PM  

vegasj: I love it Drew

Main page = Jobless rate is down to 7.8% Romney still to be unemployed next month (spiffy)

hidden over on the polictics tab = 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 (followup)


Hard to believe the actual news is on the main page and the right-wing derp is only on the politics tab. What is this world coming to?
 
2012-10-05 04:30:24 PM  

theknuckler_33: Hard to believe the actual news is on the main page and the right-wing derp is only on the politics tab. What is this world coming to?


I know uhn...

but this is on the main page now. So what now biatches?

LoL!

 
2012-10-05 04:30:32 PM  

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.


As long as it makes you feel better that you hate good news and reality. So were you complaining about the administration skewing the numbers in 2004 also?
 
2012-10-05 04:31:28 PM  
Is there anybody out there who hasn't known this for over a decade?
 
2012-10-05 04:32:25 PM  

Fear_and_Loathing: impaler: Didn't I already post this?

Yes you did, but the gains do not make a substantive difference to the number that lost jobs.  One job is a gain, but the layoffs are still happening and the growth is painfully slow.  People still want work and the dumping of jobs has not been met by the paltry addition of jobs.


You do realize that the job 'gains' are NET job gains over the previous month, right?
 
2012-10-05 04:33:02 PM  
Oh noes, I do/don't have jobz because the president.

Jackasses.
 
2012-10-05 04:33:39 PM  

vegasj: theknuckler_33: Hard to believe the actual news is on the main page and the right-wing derp is only on the politics tab. What is this world coming to?

I know uhn...

but this is on the main page now. So what now biatches?

LoL!


You should apologize for your snark, I suppose.
 
2012-10-05 04:33:43 PM  

downstairs: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Your claim is that you are employed but not REALLY employed because you don't make as much money as you would like?

Hell, if that's the metric, the employment percentage rate of the WORLD is microscopic.


Read my second post.  I'm not bitter here, this has nothing to do with what I "want".  I'm saying I'm worth $X and making <$X.  That's not good for the economy.  Hell, take me out of the equation if you have a problem with me making this personal.  Lots of people are in my situation.


If you are currently only able to make $X then you are only worth $X, not some magical number you just made up because it makes you feel better.
 
2012-10-05 04:33:58 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: I know one that was cut off from unemployment and has been clinging on to everything he owns. He attributes to the number of people not on unemployment.

Here's my town compared to statewide. Unemployment is dropping for the state because people were kicked off unemployment after an internal audit, but Colorado Springs is still rising.

Our town is at 9.8%, and at least 50% of that is IT/Tech jobs. Additionally, you can see by the red line for Colorado, exactly when they got the results of the audit, because the line goes from 9.3% to 7.7%... in an effort to make the national average look better. That many jobs weren't found, they just ended Unemployment for thousands of people over a 2 month period.


Whether or not you collect unemployment benefits has absolutely no relationship to whether or not you are counted as unemployed. The unemployment rate is calculated from citizen an employment surveys.
 
2012-10-05 04:34:24 PM  
Oh good. Main paged. If there's anything this thread is lacking it's a big old heaping cup of "I don't follow or particularly care about politics, but I'm going to vote for whichever candidate reminds me more of the biggest fart I let loose the day before the election. Also chemtrails."
 
2012-10-05 04:34:25 PM  

colon_pow: so the administration has ways of juicing the numbers. it's to be expected. politics is hardball.


So why didn't they present better numbers if they were able to juice the numbers?
 
2012-10-05 04:36:24 PM  

BoxOfBees: Oh noes, I do/don't have jobz because the president.

Jackasses.


I just want him to pull th elever that magically makes gas $1 a gallon.
 
2012-10-05 04:36:39 PM  

InmanRoshi: Former Bush administration spokesman Tony Fratto took to Twitter to say: "Stop with the dumb conspiracy theories. Good grief."


They don't recognize or want to face that lying incessantly, forcefully, confidentially and indignantly is a primary tactic of the Republican presidential campaign. Polls lie, job numbers lie, the media they own is aligned against them; it appears a more educated segment is finally backing away from the ideological train wreck.