If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

9115 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Oct 2012 at 3:00 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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.com

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

growlersoftware.com

For comparison
growlersoftware.com

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Did someone say helicopter?

doomsdayind.files.wordpress.com

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

impaler: This shat again?

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

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

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

[growlersoftware.com image 580x559]

For comparison
[growlersoftware.com image 580x544]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

From the BLS:

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

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

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

Self-assessment is not a scientific method.


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


Happens every year at this time.

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

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

So just like Bush?


No.

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

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


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

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


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

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

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



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

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

Happens every year at this time.

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

 
 
2012-10-05 02:02:12 PM  

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Oh of course, both sides are completely the same

So vote Republican.

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

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


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

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


Those are tracked by U6.

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

Didn't I already post this?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

impaler: This shat again?

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

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

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

[growlersoftware.com image 580x559]

Someone get the lights.

For comparison
[growlersoftware.com image 580x544]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Aarontology: The conservatives are doing it wrong.

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

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


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

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

Self-assessment is not a scientific method.


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


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

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

impaler: This shat again?


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

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

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

Oh of course, both sides are completely the same


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

Nabb1: Aw, bless your heart.


Yes, that is basically what I was saying.
 
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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com

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.com
 
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

www.boston.com
 
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.com
 
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.me

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

www.aei-ideas.org
 
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.com
 
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 03:34:41 PM  

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.
 
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.com
 
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 03:44:50 PM  
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.
 
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
www.addictinginfo.org
 
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.me
 
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'?


www.madmann.com
 
2012-10-05 04:14:13 PM  
www.verminsupreme.com
 
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.
 
2012-10-05 04:36:45 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?


Now we all laugh at you for your idiotic whining about something that wasn't even accurate to begin with.

Cry more.
 
2012-10-05 04:36:50 PM  
So......we're saying the tax cuts for the rich aren't working?....
 
2012-10-05 04:37:00 PM  
So unemployment numbers are WRONG when they're LOW under a Democrat, huh?
But when they're HIGHER, they're okay to plaster all over the news and totally valid for Republican mud slinging propaganda?

i91.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-05 04:37:24 PM  

tony41454: 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.


I'm just going to re-post what I said in the other thread:

Link

The 114,000 number comes from a survey of businesses, and the 7.8% comes from a survey of households. They don't move hand-in-hand, and there are often discrepancies. The biggest source of discrepancy, of course, comes from self-employed individuals and people working on an ad hoc basis (babysitters, cleaning ladies, delivery people, etc). Farm workers are also not counted in the survey of businesses, but they still comprise something like 1% of the workforce. The establishment survey (survey of businesses) also are often adjusted after the due date because of surveys that are returned late -- for example the August data was adjusted upwards by 46,000, and the July data by 40,000 in the most recent release. Lastly, there's the fundamental problem with any survey -- that the people that you surveyed are slightly out of sync with the population (or the business world) as a whole. That last bit of statistical error would hit the household survey and the establishment survey in different ways because of pure randomness.
 
2012-10-05 04:38:18 PM  

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



Based on the way we calculate "unemployment", it certainly is 7.8 %

Other countries use better methods of calculation-- European countries in particular -- so it makes their unemployment look higher than ours.

Then we gloat and say "look, socialism doesn't work!!"

So if you're a right winger and want to gloat about socialism not working, you'd better accept the 7.8% number, or we might switch to a different method of calculation and suddenly we won't look any better than Socialist Europe.
 
2012-10-05 04:38:29 PM  

InmanRoshi: Sane Republicans (once again cringe) with embarrassment.

"The numbers are put together by trained professionals and in a process that keeps politicians from interfering," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and a chief economic adviser to former President George W. Bush. "Any sort of suggestion to the contrary is wrong."

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


That's interesting. That same guy put out a tweet that the right-wingers are holding up as evidence of economists calling the BLS report into question. Link
 
2012-10-05 04:38:57 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: 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?


they didn't want to get greedy. they only need the number to go under 8. next month expect a half point drop. minimum.
 
2012-10-05 04:41:18 PM  
I guess we can look forward to this story every time unemployment drops a percentage of a point. It's not Fark, it's Troll-lol-lo!


I'd also like to welcome the dozens of new posters and alt account that have re-surfaced in the hours after the debate last Wednesday, Fark Independent 101st Fighting Keyboardist are GO!
 
2012-10-05 04:41:59 PM  

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


Since when? Since you're reference is Fox news.. O_o
 
2012-10-05 04:42:26 PM  

downstairs: 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.


You are counted in the "under-employed" numbers. Well, assuming that there's people like you who answered phone surveys which is pretty much guaranteed.
 
2012-10-05 04:44:24 PM  
low unemployment my arse. there is a town a few miles from where i live with hundreds and hundreds of illegal brown people day laborers with nothing to do and no where to go. the longer this goes on the fewer non brown people go there to shop and what not. they are good people, they want to work, but there is nothing for them.
 
2012-10-05 04:44:43 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.


No, the lie is what you just said. Unemployment is not measured by unemployment benefits, at all.

Some information for you.

Some more.

Now truth be told we *should* be using U6, but we should NOT be using it as the GOP wishes to use it, i.e. to make the democrats look bad and win an election before going back to the old system as part of a partisan hack-job for no damn reason.

Also, U3 and U6 have BOTH been falling, deal with it.

i75.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-05 04:45:45 PM  
Tennessee is trying to change the laws to remove unemployment benefits from people refusing to take a job, so long as that job pays a specific percentage of your last salary relative to how long you have been unemployed.

Link
 
2012-10-05 04:46:19 PM  

colon_pow: All2morrowsparTs: 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?

they didn't want to get greedy. they only need the number to go under 8. next month expect a half point drop. minimum.


It almost looks like you typed that with belief, but go ahead if that makes you feel better.

I mean if they can tweek it that much why not do it a couple of months earlier and inch it down to 6%? Really, it's just a rhetorical question because you seem smart enough to know and it pains you to have to push this BS talking point but I like your commitment to the cause.
 
2012-10-05 04:46:56 PM  
I don't understand the claim that "unemployment isn't going down, people are just giving up looking for a job."

Why would someone just give up looking for a job? Would being homeless be more preferential to being unemployed but looking for work?

The unemployment rate could be 1%, and the right-wingers would sqawk that it only means we have millions of people are really out of work but just aren't looking.
 
2012-10-05 04:47:15 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.


Let's see, Colorado Springs, which basically exists at the behest of government contracts and bases, has a number of teabaggers whining about government cutting jobs. Sounds like you need to get yourselves some bootstraps, chief.
 
2012-10-05 04:48:14 PM  

dinomyar: Tennessee is trying to change the laws to remove unemployment benefits from people refusing to take a job, so long as that job pays a specific percentage of your last salary relative to how long you have been unemployed.

Link


That's a tough one. I was on unemployment in 2001. I could have taken a minimum wage job that paid about the same as my benefits but it was only about 60% of my salary. I felt my time was better spent focusing on my job search.
 
2012-10-05 04:49:22 PM  

immafattie: Would being homeless be more preferential to being unemployed but looking for work?


According to Romney, that would be a 'yes' for 47% of Americans.
 
2012-10-05 04:49:27 PM  
My wife and I both quit our professional jobs this spring, moved across the country, and found new jobs, both making significantly more money than we did before. My wife was hired for 4 separate jobs this summer. 3 of them sucked, and so she looked for others. In the end, she found one she likes.

The unemployed people I know all tend to have something holding them back, like physical issues, drug addiction, or they think they're just too good for whatever job they can get. Sure, they also can't finish college, but they're too smart for that too. I have to think that a lot of the unemployed out there are far from being the best of the best. If people are honest with themselves, and willing to make some changes, there are plenty of jobs to be had.
 
2012-10-05 04:49:30 PM  

immafattie: I don't understand the claim that "unemployment isn't going down, people are just giving up looking for a job."

Why would someone just give up looking for a job? Would being homeless be more preferential to being unemployed but looking for work?


For some options like "Move back in with mom and dad so I can finish my degree" are preferable.
 
2012-10-05 04:50:02 PM  
The government has been doing that since St. Reagan. Nothing to see here.
 
2012-10-05 04:51:21 PM  

colon_pow: All2morrowsparTs: 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?

they didn't want to get greedy. they only need the number to go under 8. next month expect a half point drop. minimum.


Makes you wonder why they bothered to make the rate go UP in May and July.
 
2012-10-05 04:52:02 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: colon_pow: All2morrowsparTs: 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?

they didn't want to get greedy. they only need the number to go under 8. next month expect a half point drop. minimum.

It almost looks like you typed that with belief, but go ahead if that makes you feel better.

I mean if they can tweek it that much why not do it a couple of months earlier and inch it down to 6%? Really, it's just a rhetorical question because you seem smart enough to know and it pains you to have to push this BS talking point but I like your commitment to the cause.


just thinking outside the box. if they can juice the numbers, they would be fools not to do so.
 
2012-10-05 04:52:24 PM  

KrispyKritter: low unemployment my arse. there is a town a few miles from where i live with hundreds and hundreds of illegal brown people day laborers with nothing to do and no where to go. the longer this goes on the fewer non brown people go there to shop and what not. they are good people, they want to work, but there is nothing for them.


Pretty sure they don't survey illegals, at least not on purpose. However, there's a great method for lowering their unemployment, called "shipping them back where they came from".

The cool thing is that all of this whining by Republicans will convince undecideds. They'll say "I have no idea if 7.8% is a good number or not, but the Republicans are saying the Democrats are cheating, so it must be great!"
 
2012-10-05 04:52:37 PM  
Ok, simple question. This BLS report shows the unadjusted unemployment rate. Didn't they always make seasonabl adjustments to the rate in the past? If that's the case, changing how it's reported could be considered "skewing" the results.
 
2012-10-05 04:53:09 PM  

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

[i.imgur.com image 380x179]


Its too bad that graph doesn't has numbers, or facts because if it did, it would say that the job numbers under Obama are roughly 60,000-130,000 per month and when the economy needs roughly 70-90,000 adds per month just to replace retiring workers, we have what is essentially a stagnant recovery. Draw a line from the 6-month part of Obama's term, after the stimulus bucks ran out and it is flat.
 
2012-10-05 04:53:36 PM  

theknuckler_33: colon_pow: All2morrowsparTs: 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?

they didn't want to get greedy. they only need the number to go under 8. next month expect a half point drop. minimum.

Makes you wonder why they bothered to make the rate go UP in May and July.


do i have to explain everything to you? they were hoping the numbers would fall legitimately. this is their plan b.

yeeesh.
 
2012-10-05 04:53:41 PM  

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

Since when? Since you're reference is Fox news.. O_o


Thatsthejoke.jpg
 
2012-10-05 04:53:50 PM  

colon_pow: All2morrowsparTs: colon_pow: All2morrowsparTs: 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?

they didn't want to get greedy. they only need the number to go under 8. next month expect a half point drop. minimum.

It almost looks like you typed that with belief, but go ahead if that makes you feel better.

I mean if they can tweek it that much why not do it a couple of months earlier and inch it down to 6%? Really, it's just a rhetorical question because you seem smart enough to know and it pains you to have to push this BS talking point but I like your commitment to the cause.

just thinking outside the box. if they can juice the numbers, they would be fools not to do so.


If they were able to, then unemployment numbers from the BLS would have been -2% for the last 20 years trending down.
 
2012-10-05 04:53:58 PM  
8% of people registered at the unemployment office...
or
8% of people collecting unemployment?

Obama let fly that there are 3 million jobs currently available. From now on, I'd like to see a state-by-state ratio of people registered as unemployed versus the number of open positions. This could help determine how much more training in particular areas is needed. Could also help decide who can work and who won't work.
 
2012-10-05 04:56:23 PM  

colon_pow: theknuckler_33: colon_pow: All2morrowsparTs: 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?

they didn't want to get greedy. they only need the number to go under 8. next month expect a half point drop. minimum.

Makes you wonder why they bothered to make the rate go UP in May and July.

do i have to explain everything to you? they were hoping the numbers would fall legitimately. this is their plan b.

yeeesh.


So, it's just this most recent report that is fake and the fall in unemployment is real up until NOW? Have I got that right?
 
2012-10-05 04:56:34 PM  

lymond01: 8% of people registered at the unemployment office...
or
8% of people collecting unemployment?

Obama let fly that there are 3 million jobs currently available. From now on, I'd like to see a state-by-state ratio of people registered as unemployed versus the number of open positions. This could help determine how much more training in particular areas is needed. Could also help decide who can work and who won't work.


Sounds like you have your Doctoral thesis all set.
 
2012-10-05 04:59:52 PM  

o5iiawah: Its too bad that graph doesn't has numbers,


i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-05 05:00:42 PM  

dinomyar: Tennessee is trying to change the laws to remove unemployment benefits from people refusing to take a job, so long as that job pays a specific percentage of your last salary relative to how long you have been unemployed.

Link


Wow... I'm sure that will effect 10s of people. I'm sure the new regulations on businesses having to report such situations are going to be very welcome.
 
2012-10-05 05:02:56 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: 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.


This...

/also, the number of August and September job gains were revised upwards again
//but keep at that chicken

...and that.
 
2012-10-05 05:02:56 PM  
Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed
 
2012-10-05 05:03:47 PM  

jst3p: dinomyar: Tennessee is trying to change the laws to remove unemployment benefits from people refusing to take a job, so long as that job pays a specific percentage of your last salary relative to how long you have been unemployed.

Link

That's a tough one. I was on unemployment in 2001. I could have taken a minimum wage job that paid about the same as my benefits but it was only about 60% of my salary. I felt my time was better spent focusing on my job search.


Did you read the link? It would not have effected you... at all.
 
2012-10-05 05:05:47 PM  
Chris Matthews is SCHOOLING Jack Welch right now.
 
2012-10-05 05:06:17 PM  

theknuckler_33: jst3p: dinomyar: Tennessee is trying to change the laws to remove unemployment benefits from people refusing to take a job, so long as that job pays a specific percentage of your last salary relative to how long you have been unemployed.

Link

That's a tough one. I was on unemployment in 2001. I could have taken a minimum wage job that paid about the same as my benefits but it was only about 60% of my salary. I felt my time was better spent focusing on my job search.

Did you read the link? It would not have effected you... at all.


Of course not I was unemployed in 2001 and not in Ten. DUH!

No I assumend and typed, this is fark after all!
 
2012-10-05 05:08:36 PM  

theknuckler_33: colon_pow: theknuckler_33: colon_pow: All2morrowsparTs: 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?

they didn't want to get greedy. they only need the number to go under 8. next month expect a half point drop. minimum.

Makes you wonder why they bothered to make the rate go UP in May and July.

do i have to explain everything to you? they were hoping the numbers would fall legitimately. this is their plan b.

yeeesh.

So, it's just this most recent report that is fake and the fall in unemployment is real up until NOW? Have I got that right?


according to my sources, i believe this may in fact be the case.
 
2012-10-05 05:09:01 PM  
Truthers, Birthers, and now Jobbers. It's always fun to watch wack-a-doodle conspiracy theories be born in real time.
 
2012-10-05 05:09:49 PM  
"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"


What about people who die?

They're no longer "unemployed", right?
 
2012-10-05 05:09:55 PM  

Bag of Hammers: I guess we can look forward to this story every time unemployment drops a percentage of a point. It's not Fark, it's Troll-lol-lo!


It's the natural progression.

1. Cherry pick statistics that make things seem as terrible as possible.

2. When even the bad statistics look up, claim 1 month isn't a trend.

3. Once there is a trend, complain that the numbers that make up the trend are wrong. After all, I personally know a guy who is still unemployed.
 
2012-10-05 05:10:48 PM  
The ADP numbers, which are calculated by payroll analysis instead of sample populations, also show a decrease in unemployment. Don't let reality get in the way of your narrative, GOP, it has never stopped you before.
 
2012-10-05 05:11:05 PM  
If I were going to fake an employment number, I'd pick a better one.
FFS... the jobs added exceeded expectations but they were not of the October Surprise variety. Dammit Jack Welch, I like you but you're letting your crazy old man persona take over here
 
2012-10-05 05:11:16 PM  

colon_pow: theknuckler_33: colon_pow: theknuckler_33: colon_pow: All2morrowsparTs: 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?

they didn't want to get greedy. they only need the number to go under 8. next month expect a half point drop. minimum.

Makes you wonder why they bothered to make the rate go UP in May and July.

do i have to explain everything to you? they were hoping the numbers would fall legitimately. this is their plan b.

yeeesh.

So, it's just this most recent report that is fake and the fall in unemployment is real up until NOW? Have I got that right?

according to my sources, i believe this may in fact be the case.


The people in your trailer park don't count as sources.
 
2012-10-05 05:11:19 PM  

jst3p: theknuckler_33: jst3p: dinomyar: Tennessee is trying to change the laws to remove unemployment benefits from people refusing to take a job, so long as that job pays a specific percentage of your last salary relative to how long you have been unemployed.

Link

That's a tough one. I was on unemployment in 2001. I could have taken a minimum wage job that paid about the same as my benefits but it was only about 60% of my salary. I felt my time was better spent focusing on my job search.

Did you read the link? It would not have effected you... at all.

Of course not I was unemployed in 2001 and not in Ten. DUH!


I just meant that the link describes the requirements for being denied unemployment for declining a job. Under no circumstances described in the link would declining a job with a salary of only 60% of your previous salary would result in you losing your unemployment benefits. That law, as written, probably wouldn't effect anyone.
 
2012-10-05 05:11:31 PM  

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



Is it a bridge to America's future?
 
2012-10-05 05:12:14 PM  
is anyone still taking this absurd headline/Foxtoid seriously?
 
2012-10-05 05:12:23 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: 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 knew I had this somewhere:
[i159.photobucket.com image 670x164]


It's gonna be a Romvember!
1. 30% of people like Sienna skin tones.
2. 1 in 7 voters are 47% umber.
3. Profit.

/I have no idea what I'm doing.
 
2012-10-05 05:12:27 PM  

colon_pow: theknuckler_33: colon_pow: theknuckler_33: colon_pow: All2morrowsparTs: 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?

they didn't want to get greedy. they only need the number to go under 8. next month expect a half point drop. minimum.

Makes you wonder why they bothered to make the rate go UP in May and July.

do i have to explain everything to you? they were hoping the numbers would fall legitimately. this is their plan b.

yeeesh.

So, it's just this most recent report that is fake and the fall in unemployment is real up until NOW? Have I got that right?

according to my sources, i believe this may in fact be the case.


Your 'sources'? Okay mr. investigative reporter you. *reaches out and musses your hair*
 
2012-10-05 05:13:09 PM  

Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed


supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.
 
2012-10-05 05:13:48 PM  

theknuckler_33: dinomyar: Tennessee is trying to change the laws to remove unemployment benefits from people refusing to take a job, so long as that job pays a specific percentage of your last salary relative to how long you have been unemployed.

Link

Wow... I'm sure that will effect 10s of people. I'm sure the new regulations on businesses having to report such situations are going to be very welcome.



During the first 13 weeks of unemployment, an offer of 100 percent of the wages of the most recent work
During the 14th through the 25th week of unemployment, an offer of 75 percent of the wages of the most recent work
During the 26th through the 38th week of unemployment, an offer of 70 percent of the wages of the most recent work
After the 38th week of unemployment, 65 percent of the wages of the most recent work

Like anyone in Tennessee can do that kind of math.
 
2012-10-05 05:13:52 PM  

BSABSVR: Bag of Hammers: I guess we can look forward to this story every time unemployment drops a percentage of a point. It's not Fark, it's Troll-lol-lo!

It's the natural progression.

1. Cherry pick statistics that make things seem as terrible as possible.

2. When even the bad statistics look up, claim 1 month isn't a trend.

3. Once there is a trend, complain that the numbers that make up the trend are wrong. After all, I personally know a guy who is still unemployed.


4. Get Drew to greenlight somebodies shiatty blog saying just this.

5. ?????

6. Profit
 
2012-10-05 05:14:12 PM  

colon_pow: theknuckler_33: colon_pow: All2morrowsparTs: 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?

they didn't want to get greedy. they only need the number to go under 8. next month expect a half point drop. minimum.

Makes you wonder why they bothered to make the rate go UP in May and July.

do i have to explain everything to you? they were hoping the numbers would fall legitimately. this is their plan b.

yeeesh.


And by "they" you mean the independent BLS who isn't staffed by political appointments?

Or do you mean the independent private sector ADP, who's publish their own independent report showing an even better 160k uptick in jobs in September?

Or do you mean the 12 foot tall lizard people who are currently meeting as the Bildeberg Group running all of the the world's media and financial institutions to brainwash the human masses so they can harvest us for food?
 
2012-10-05 05:16:11 PM  

o5iiawah: supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.


Guns don't kill people.
 
2012-10-05 05:16:19 PM  

firefly212: The ADP numbers, which are calculated by payroll analysis instead of sample populations, also show a decrease in unemployment. Don't let reality get in the way of your narrative, GOP, it has never stopped you before.


Not that I'm trying to argue the point you are trying to make, but I don't think ADP reports on "unemployment", they report on payrolls, which have showed over 800K net new jobs over the past 5 months.
 
2012-10-05 05:16:28 PM  

theknuckler_33: dinomyar: Tennessee is trying to change the laws to remove unemployment benefits from people refusing to take a job, so long as that job pays a specific percentage of your last salary relative to how long you have been unemployed.

Link

Wow... I'm sure that will effect 10s of people. I'm sure the new regulations on businesses having to report such situations are going to be very welcome.


Businesses are already reporting it. That is why the law is being passed.

Not 10s but 1000s

FTA
"Thousands of Tennesseans will be affected by a new state law that requires residents to take a job offered, or risk losing their unemployment benefits."
 
2012-10-05 05:16:45 PM  

Slampig: The unemployed people I know all tend to have something holding them back, like physical issues, drug addiction, or they think they're just too good for whatever job they can get.


If you are reading this and unemployed:

LEARN HOW TO PROGRAM ANDROID APPLICATIONS

You can do it at the library, or with the POS netbook you use to look at porn. It will take two months, then publish your fart app to Google Play. Then update your resume and watch your phone blow up. There is not a single city in the US that doesn't have dozens of android developer jobs open. $65K to start.

There, problem solved.
 
2012-10-05 05:17:36 PM  
I would drive dump trucks full of cash to a good JEE engineer/architect with e-com experience who lives in SE Michigan.

I would drive golf carts full of cash to anyone in SE Michigan who is willing to work hard and can *spell* JEE.

I know some industries are worse off than others but software engineers have been scarce since 2010 or so. Back in 2008/2009 I could have my pick of talent.

/I know: Anecdotal evidence isn't
 
2012-10-05 05:19:52 PM  

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

You said Bush twice.


We see what you did there...

newsbusters.org

/wait... do we???
 
2012-10-05 05:20:56 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?


Because the sheriff is near and soshulisms and Jebus.
 
2012-10-05 05:21:27 PM  

o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.


Citations nee--

Oh HAI o5iiawah!
 
2012-10-05 05:22:36 PM  

InmanRoshi: colon_pow: theknuckler_33: colon_pow: All2morrowsparTs: 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?

they didn't want to get greedy. they only need the number to go under 8. next month expect a half point drop. minimum.

Makes you wonder why they bothered to make the rate go UP in May and July.

do i have to explain everything to you? they were hoping the numbers would fall legitimately. this is their plan b.

yeeesh.

And by "they" you mean the independent BLS who isn't staffed by political appointments?

Or do you mean the independent private sector ADP, who's publish their own independent report showing an even better 160k uptick in jobs in September?

Or do you mean the 12 foot tall lizard people who are currently meeting as the Bildeberg Group running all of the the world's media and financial institutions to brainwash the human masses so they can harvest us for food?


my sources demand anonymity. i can say no more about that, so please don't ask.
 
2012-10-05 05:23:01 PM  

o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.


something something Reagan armed the taliban something.
 
2012-10-05 05:23:13 PM  

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


You are truly history's most Allen West-iest monster. Truly.
 
2012-10-05 05:25:20 PM  

tony41454: So they had to get the number down, and they found a way to do it.



how does that tin foil hate feel?
 
2012-10-05 05:25:33 PM  

InmanRoshi: "....the Bildeberg Group.... so they can harvest us for food?"


i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-05 05:27:30 PM  

dinomyar: theknuckler_33: dinomyar: Tennessee is trying to change the laws to remove unemployment benefits from people refusing to take a job, so long as that job pays a specific percentage of your last salary relative to how long you have been unemployed.

Link

Wow... I'm sure that will effect 10s of people. I'm sure the new regulations on businesses having to report such situations are going to be very welcome.

Businesses are already reporting it. That is why the law is being passed.

Not 10s but 1000s

FTA
"Thousands of Tennesseans will be affected by a new state law that requires residents to take a job offered, or risk losing their unemployment benefits."


Thousands of people in Tennessee are collecting unemployment benefits, the new law is regarding unemployment benefits therefore thousands of Tennesseans will be affected. Right?

"While there's no data that shows Tennesseans are turning down work just to stay unemployed, employers across the state said it's a problem."

Well, that's settled then.

Did you read the stipulations? Personally, I can't wait for the follow-up of that story showing the 1000s of people caught up in their web of laziness!!!
 
2012-10-05 05:28:44 PM  

o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.


Remember folks that Obama personally gave weapons to the drug cartels who prior to this were using spitballs and harsh language.
 
2012-10-05 05:28:58 PM  

o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.


Bush is not up for re-election.F
(Fast and Furiuos was started during that administration.)
 
2012-10-05 05:29:02 PM  

o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.



skullkrusher like typing detected
 
2012-10-05 05:29:11 PM  

Fear_and_Loathing: 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.


Thank you Fear_and_Loathing, I've seen liberal shills espousing "but the Republicans" - Has nothing to do with party affiliation but winning campaigns, period.

Also not taken into consideration: Hiring for the upcoming holidays. a couple of months of short term employment is mot a fix it's a band-aid.
 
2012-10-05 05:30:08 PM  

intelligent comment below: o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.


skullkrusher like typing detected


holy crap you're pathetic. Seriously dude, seek help.
 
2012-10-05 05:30:12 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.


i hope it's clear to most people in the thread, this is not at all how unemployment is calculated. you don't have to be receiving unemployment benefits in order to be counted; no one is counting all the unemployed people and reaching this 7.8% number, and no one ever has been. there is an extensive phone survey, people are asked if they have jobs, if they're looking for work, if they've given up looking. they take a large enough and representative enough sample to be able to say, broadly, this is what percentage of the workforce is looking for work but is not working. right now, 78 out of every 1000 workers are not employed but are looking for work.

people who don't believe in statistics, who don't know anything about the past, and are too lazy to learn about the methods behind the information they consume will always be susceptible to persuasion by others who may not have their best interests in mind. so, we get people like downstairs. this is the way he wants it. well, he gets it. i don't like it any more than you men.

/eventually Cool Hand Luke will just take over every post.
 
2012-10-05 05:30:17 PM  

BSABSVR: o5iiawah: supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.

Guns don't kill people.



Unless the gun was supplied by a Demorat!
 
2012-10-05 05:30:36 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.


And if anyone knows about the troubles of talking so much shiat they about drown in it, it would be MeinRS6. Serious respect that he can keep such retarded views up.
 
2012-10-05 05:31:22 PM  

BSABSVR: o5iiawah: supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.

Guns don't kill people.


Mexican drug dealers armed with American government supplied guns kill people. But what does this have to do with the unemployment rate?
 
2012-10-05 05:31:22 PM  
So to summarize this article Hot Air can't accept the numbers that used the same formula under Republican Administrations which are obviously a conspiracy when used by Democratic ones.
 
2012-10-05 05:33:39 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.

Bush is not up for re-election.F
(Fast and Furiuos was started during that administration.)


F&F was not started up during the Bush administration. They did start another program that was similar, but when they figured out they could not track the weapons, they terminated the program immediately. Under Obama, they didn't care if they could track the weapons or not, and they didn't even bother to try.
 
2012-10-05 05:33:43 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.

Bush is not up for re-election.F
(Fast and Furious was started during that administration.)


OH.....*SNAP*
 
2012-10-05 05:33:47 PM  

skullkrusher: intelligent comment below: o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.


skullkrusher like typing detected

holy crap you're pathetic. Seriously dude, seek help.



Oh wow look who magically shows up?

This is all a coincidence of course
 
2012-10-05 05:34:16 PM  

OgreMagi: BSABSVR: o5iiawah: supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.

Guns don't kill people.

Mexican drug dealers armed with American government supplied guns kill people. But what does this have to do with the unemployment rate?


they could take those weapons to the unemployment office and start mowing down the unemployed. the rate would go down.
 
2012-10-05 05:35:26 PM  

skullkrusher: intelligent comment below: o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.


skullkrusher like typing detected

holy crap you're pathetic. Seriously dude, seek help.



And speaking of pathetic, almost exactly a minute after I posted you magically reply from out of left field.

This is all purely coincidental of course.

/your alts aren't fooling anyone.

//yes that makes you pathetic. Seek help.
 
2012-10-05 05:35:56 PM  

intelligent comment below: skullkrusher: intelligent comment below: o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.


skullkrusher like typing detected

holy crap you're pathetic. Seriously dude, seek help.


Oh wow look who magically shows up?

This is all a coincidence of course


Not a coincidence at all. My 72 hour banhammer was lifted about 1/2 an hour ago and I posted in here. You remain pathetic.
 
2012-10-05 05:36:04 PM  

OgreMagi: BSABSVR: o5iiawah: supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.

Guns don't kill people.

Mexican drug dealers armed with American government supplied guns kill people. But what does this have to do with the unemployment rate?



So before the Bush administration started the Fast and Furious program, cartels never had guns?
 
2012-10-05 05:36:10 PM  
Would you guys please stop responding to people on everyone's ignore list?

Thanks in advance.
 
2012-10-05 05:36:34 PM  

OgreMagi: All2morrowsparTs: o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.

Bush is not up for re-election.F
(Fast and Furiuos was started during that administration.)

F&F was not started up during the Bush administration. They did start another program that was similar, but when they figured out they could not track the weapons, they terminated the program immediately. Under Obama, they didn't care if they could track the weapons or not, and they didn't even bother to try.


Wiki-

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011.[2][5] These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[6] "Gun walking" or "letting guns walk" was a tactic whereby the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders."[7]
 
2012-10-05 05:36:43 PM  

OgreMagi: They did start another program that was similar, but when they figured out they could not track the weapons, they terminated the program immediately.



False
 
2012-10-05 05:37:46 PM  

intelligent comment below: skullkrusher: intelligent comment below: o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.


skullkrusher like typing detected

holy crap you're pathetic. Seriously dude, seek help.


Oh wow look who magically shows up?

This is all a coincidence of course


he posted at least 20 minutes before you referenced him.
 
2012-10-05 05:37:49 PM  

skullkrusher: Not a coincidence at all. My 72 hour banhammer was lifted about 1/2 an hour ago and I posted in here. You remain pathetic.



Well that explains all the from left field trolls that have appeared the past few days

I has a sad that you think I'm pathetic. I really care what you think. honestly. And so does society, since you are a captain of industry and all
 
2012-10-05 05:37:55 PM  
It's all bullchit and it's bad for ya"

oops, dropped this: Link
 
2012-10-05 05:37:59 PM  

intelligent comment below: skullkrusher: intelligent comment below: o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.


skullkrusher like typing detected

holy crap you're pathetic. Seriously dude, seek help.


And speaking of pathetic, almost exactly a minute after I posted you magically reply from out of left field.

This is all purely coincidental of course.

/your alts aren't fooling anyone.

//yes that makes you pathetic. Seek help.


yeah, I tend to check threads that I have posted in. I see the little new number post next to the total posts, you see. Then I do a Ctrl-F for my handle to see if there are any responses. Imagine my surprise at seeing your skullkrusher-alt-derangement instead of a response to something I said.
Not really surprising at all.
 
2012-10-05 05:38:48 PM  

theknuckler_33: intelligent comment below: skullkrusher: intelligent comment below: o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.


skullkrusher like typing detected

holy crap you're pathetic. Seriously dude, seek help.


Oh wow look who magically shows up?

This is all a coincidence of course

he posted at least 20 minutes before you referenced him.


he needs this. Let it go.
 
2012-10-05 05:39:10 PM  

skullkrusher:

yeah, I tend to check threads that I have posted in. I see the little new number post next to the total posts, you see. Then I do a Ctrl-F for my handle to see if there are any responses. Imagine my surprise at seeing your skullkrusher-alt-derangement instead of a response to something I said.
Not really surprising at all.



sure thing buddy. You don't use alts at all. That's just crazy talk.
 
2012-10-05 05:39:40 PM  

intelligent comment below: skullkrusher: Not a coincidence at all. My 72 hour banhammer was lifted about 1/2 an hour ago and I posted in here. You remain pathetic.


Well that explains all the from left field trolls that have appeared the past few days

I has a sad that you think I'm pathetic. I really care what you think. honestly. And so does society, since you are a captain of industry and all


You caught me. How many of my alts did you unearth? Could you name them for me? I'll let you know if you missed any. They are Legion.
 
2012-10-05 05:39:50 PM  

OgreMagi: Mexican drug dealers armed with American government supplied guns kill people. But what does this have to do with the unemployment rate?


It's complicated. Almost as complicated as figuring out how to pay a bill or communicate with a loved one without using a computer.
 
2012-10-05 05:39:59 PM  

skullkrusher: he needs this. Let it go.



From the guy who just admits he runs onto here and starts posting the second his ban is lifted, who "needs" what now?

there you trolls go with that projection again
 
2012-10-05 05:41:34 PM  

intelligent comment below: OgreMagi: BSABSVR: o5iiawah: supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.

Guns don't kill people.

Mexican drug dealers armed with American government supplied guns kill people. But what does this have to do with the unemployment rate?


So before the Bush administration started the Fast and Furious program, cartels never had guns?


You mean before the Obama administration started F&F, right? Because Bush didn't start it. How many times does this need to be repeated, or are you people purposely pretending to be ignorant?
 
2012-10-05 05:43:11 PM  
I have a problem with the counting methodology in the headline.

"There's just one problem- problem A and problem B."
 
2012-10-05 05:43:27 PM  

intelligent comment below: skullkrusher: he needs this. Let it go.


From the guy who just admits he runs onto here and starts posting the second his ban is lifted, who "needs" what now?

there you trolls go with that projection again


yeah, I knew when my ban was over. Was lurking earlier in the day. Decided to post when my ban ended. Is it a secret that I am around here often? See, when I am talking about things you need, it's the belief that there are alts assailing you from all corners because you cannot believe that there are multiple, distinct people, who find your opinions laughable. You need that. It's ok, you can have it. I have dozens of alts. Hell, I have carried on 500 post conversations with myself in some threads. See, that's what Drew pays me for. Generating page clicks through my alt trolling.

/this is what ICB actually (needs to) believe!
 
2012-10-05 05:44:03 PM  

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



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

0bama didn't start anything. the ATF ran these programs until 2011. All the programs under Bush and 0bama lost guns to Mexico, so why are you blaming 0bama only for a program run by another agency and started under the Bush administration?
 
2012-10-05 05:44:15 PM  

Whiskey Pete: OgreMagi: All2morrowsparTs: o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.

Bush is not up for re-election.F
(Fast and Furiuos was started during that administration.)

F&F was not started up during the Bush administration. They did start another program that was similar, but when they figured out they could not track the weapons, they terminated the program immediately. Under Obama, they didn't care if they could track the weapons or not, and they didn't even bother to try.

Wiki-

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011.[2][5] These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[6] "Gun walking" or "letting guns walk" was a tactic whereby the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders."[7]


Different operation entirely. When they found they could not track the guns (due to mexican police corruption), they terminated the program. Obama's F&F program had no provisions to track the guns. All they did was guarantee sales that were illegal and watched them disappear across the border. It was a program that had no purpose and made no sense.
 
2012-10-05 05:44:47 PM  

skullkrusher: yeah, I knew when my ban was over. Was lurking earlier in the day. Decided to post when my ban ended. Is it a secret that I am around here often? See, when I am talking about things you need, it's the belief that there are alts assailing you from all corners because you cannot believe that there are multiple, distinct people, who find your opinions laughable. You need that. It's ok, you can have it. I have dozens of alts. Hell, I have carried on 500 post conversations with myself in some threads. See, that's what Drew pays me for. Generating page clicks through my alt trolling.

/this is what ICB actually (needs to) believe!



you mad bro? seek help
 
2012-10-05 05:45:36 PM  

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


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

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


My god, you are a complete farking stooge.
 
2012-10-05 05:46:11 PM  

intelligent comment below: skullkrusher: yeah, I knew when my ban was over. Was lurking earlier in the day. Decided to post when my ban ended. Is it a secret that I am around here often? See, when I am talking about things you need, it's the belief that there are alts assailing you from all corners because you cannot believe that there are multiple, distinct people, who find your opinions laughable. You need that. It's ok, you can have it. I have dozens of alts. Hell, I have carried on 500 post conversations with myself in some threads. See, that's what Drew pays me for. Generating page clicks through my alt trolling.

/this is what ICB actually (needs to) believe!


you mad bro? seek help


no, do I sound mad?

deepian.com
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
 
2012-10-05 05:48:49 PM  
Subby is a diship or has a limited grasp of English. You decide.
 
2012-10-05 05:51:25 PM  

OgreMagi: intelligent comment below: OgreMagi: BSABSVR: o5iiawah: supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.

Guns don't kill people.

Mexican drug dealers armed with American government supplied guns kill people. But what does this have to do with the unemployment rate?


So before the Bush administration started the Fast and Furious program, cartels never had guns?

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


If you knew anything about it, you would be purposely pretending to be stupid.
Presidents do not control this F&F crap.
It is run by the Prez's boss.
Be just a bit honest, plz.
 
2012-10-05 05:52:09 PM  
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2012-10-05 05:55:03 PM  

skullkrusher:
no, do I sound mad?

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



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

*sniff* I can remember when you first got hear... *wipes tear*
 
2012-10-05 05:56:12 PM  
I'm sure all this September hiring had nothing to do with retailers hiring temporary employees for Halloween, Thanksgiving, Black Friday and the overall Christmas shopping season.
 
2012-10-05 06:04:30 PM  

Bill Murray said I was weird: Hey, scumbag, still waiting for you to accept the bet I proposed to you.Or are you still too busy wishing for the president's assassination to come up with a BS excuse to get out of it?


Careful. protected troll is protected.
 
2012-10-05 06:04:58 PM  
Where the hell have you been the last several years, OP?

I mean, I realize that attacking the lower numbers makes Obama look bad and all, but several people have been on top of this one for years now. The stats are every bit as bogus as they were five, even ten years ago.
 
2012-10-05 06:07:28 PM  

BSABSVR: Bill Murray said I was weird: Hey, scumbag, still waiting for you to accept the bet I proposed to you.Or are you still too busy wishing for the president's assassination to come up with a BS excuse to get out of it?

Careful. protected troll is protected.


Still, the more people know this guy is a coward who prays for assassinations and posts other farkers personal information, the better, and the longer he dodges the bet the more he can be shown to be a craven coward.
 
2012-10-05 06:07:43 PM  

Epoch_Zero: 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.com image 500x677]


I look at the orange tan one and hear the oompa loompa song in my head.... every. time.
 
2012-10-05 06:08:27 PM  

gerrychampoux: I'm sure all this September hiring had nothing to do with retailers hiring temporary employees for Halloween, Thanksgiving, Black Friday and the overall Christmas shopping season.


I never really heard of Halloween and Thanksgiving being particularly big retail booms, but yea, Christmas season hiring is probably starting to happen. That's why the BLS report is seasonally adjusted because, you know, Christmas happens every year and we have a good idea roughly how many temporary jobs it creates.

/Christmas has been around for a long time
 
2012-10-05 06:10:44 PM  

I don't care how you calculate that 7.8%. It doesn't matter two spits how many people you have employed, what matters is what you have them doing...

From the actual report from the BLS:

Health care added 44,000 jobs in September. Job gains continued in ambulatory
health care services (+30,000) and hospitals (+8,000). Over the past year,
employment in health care has risen by 295,000.

In September, employment increased by 17,000 in transportation and warehousing.
Within the industry, there were job gains in transit and ground passenger
transportation (+9,000) and in warehousing and storage (+4,000).

Employment in financial activities edged up in September (+13,000), reflecting
modest job growth in credit intermediation (+6,000) and real estate (+7,000).

Manufacturing employment edged down in September (-16,000). On net, manufacturing
employment has been unchanged since April. In September, job losses occurred
in computer and electronic products (-6,000) and in printing and related
activities (-3,000).


Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction,
wholesale trade, retail trade, information, professional and business services,
leisure and hospitality, and government, showed little change over the month.


So how are we ever supposed to feel good about the direction our economy is going? We're adding jobs in health care (Service industry) thanks to Obamacare, but losing manufacturing for the billionth time. Hooray! If we continue on this track, our biggest industry will be looking after each other's health instead of adding wealth to the nation by building things that the world wants.

Short version: Unemployment numbers mean crap, what is meaningful is what industries are expanding, and which ones are shrinking. The industries that do not bring in wealth are expanding, the industries that do make the country richer are continuing to shrink.
 
2012-10-05 06:10:49 PM  
downstairs: 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.


THIS, been underemployed since the SHTF in '08.
 
2012-10-05 06:12:31 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.


Two years ago, my small business went under. I was unemployed for a year, but never filed for unemployment. Last year I did some part-time work, then lost that position and spent another six months unemployed -- and not on unemployment. In June, I started working again.

I also have a friend who was a stockbroker, lost his job after his Republican boss decided to neglect his business to run for Senate (and preach the imminent total collapse of the US financial system), was unemployed for months (although never filed for unemployment) and, last I heard, was working at a car wash.

Neither one of us have ever been a part of these numbers.
 
2012-10-05 06:15:40 PM  

keylock71: skullkrusher:
no, do I sound mad?

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


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

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


Hehe careful. That show of sentimentality towards me might get you whacked by Single White Comment
 
2012-10-05 06:15:45 PM  

Big Man On Campus: I don't care how you calculate that 7.8%. It doesn't matter two spits how many people you have employed, what matters is what you have them doing...

From the actual report from the BLS:

Health care added 44,000 jobs in September. Job gains continued in ambulatory
health care services (+30,000) and hospitals (+8,000). Over the past year,
employment in health care has risen by 295,000.

In September, employment increased by 17,000 in transportation and warehousing.
Within the industry, there were job gains in transit and ground passenger
transportation (+9,000) and in warehousing and storage (+4,000).

Employment in financial activities edged up in September (+13,000), reflecting
modest job growth in credit intermediation (+6,000) and real estate (+7,000).

Manufacturing employment edged down in September (-16,000). On net, manufacturing
employment has been unchanged since April. In September, job losses occurred
in computer and electronic products (-6,000) and in printing and related
activities (-3,000).

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction,
wholesale trade, retail trade, information, professional and business services,
leisure and hospitality, and government, showed little change over the month.

So how are we ever supposed to feel good about the direction our economy is going? We're adding jobs in health care (Service industry) thanks to Obamacare, but losing manufacturing for the billionth time. Hooray! If we continue on this track, our biggest industry will be looking after each other's health instead of adding wealth to the nation by building things that the world wants.

Short version: Unemployment numbers mean crap, what is meaningful is what industries are expanding, and which ones are shrinking. The industries that do not bring in wealth are expanding, the industries that do make the country richer are continuing to shrink.


So... Services industry bad? That's what you are going with?
 
2012-10-05 06:15:54 PM  

o5iiawah: Dusk-You-n-Me: [pbs.twimg.com image 580x415]

[i.imgur.com image 380x179]

Its too bad that graph doesn't has numbers, or facts because if it did, it would say that the job numbers under Obama are roughly 60,000-130,000 per month and when the economy needs roughly 70-90,000 adds per month just to replace retiring workers, we have what is essentially a stagnant recovery. Draw a line from the 6-month part of Obama's term, after the stimulus bucks ran out and it is flat.



Gee, and who is it that hates stimulus and didn't want any more? (the Republicans)

And why might it be that they want to keep Americans out of work? (to get one of their own elected).

I had to provide the answers because wingnuts are idiots and don't know the obvious answers.
 
2012-10-05 06:22:14 PM  

MacWizard: 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.

Two years ago, my small business went under. I was unemployed for a year, but never filed for unemployment. Last year I did some part-time work, then lost that position and spent another six months unemployed -- and not on unemployment. In June, I started working again.

I also have a friend who was a stockbroker, lost his job after his Republican boss decided to neglect his business to run for Senate (and preach the imminent total collapse of the US financial system), was unemployed for months (although never filed for unemployment) and, last I heard, was working at a car wash.

Neither one of us have ever been a part of these numbers.


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

You are either colossally stupid of lying through your teeth.

Considering the fact that your comments are in relation to the validity (or supposed lack thereof) of the BLS report, I'm leaning heavily towards the latter.
 
2012-10-05 06:22:18 PM  

Big Man On Campus: I don't care how you calculate that 7.8%. It doesn't matter two spits how many people you have employed, what matters is what you have them doing...

From the actual report from the BLS:

Health care added 44,000 jobs in September. Job gains continued in ambulatory
health care services (+30,000) and hospitals (+8,000). Over the past year,
employment in health care has risen by 295,000.

In September, employment increased by 17,000 in transportation and warehousing.
Within the industry, there were job gains in transit and ground passenger
transportation (+9,000) and in warehousing and storage (+4,000).

Employment in financial activities edged up in September (+13,000), reflecting
modest job growth in credit intermediation (+6,000) and real estate (+7,000).

Manufacturing employment edged down in September (-16,000). On net, manufacturing
employment has been unchanged since April. In September, job losses occurred
in computer and electronic products (-6,000) and in printing and related
activities (-3,000).

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction,
wholesale trade, retail trade, information, professional and business services,
leisure and hospitality, and government, showed little change over the month.

So how are we ever supposed to feel good about the direction our economy is going? We're adding jobs in health care (Service industry) thanks to Obamacare, but losing manufacturing for the billionth time. Hooray! If we continue on this track, our biggest industry will be looking after each other's health instead of adding wealth to the nation by building things that the world wants.

Short version: Unemployment numbers mean crap, what is meaningful is what industries are expanding, and which ones are shrinking. The industries that do not bring in wealth are expanding, the industries that do make the country richer are continuing to shrink.


There has been a huge spike in the manufacture of shovels and bicycle gears based on the amount of digging and back-pedaling Conservatives have been doing lately.
 
2012-10-05 06:22:19 PM  

MacWizard: Two years ago, my small business went under. I was unemployed for a year, but never filed for unemployment. Last year I did some part-time work, then lost that position and spent another six months unemployed -- and not on unemployment. In June, I started working again.

I also have a friend who was a stockbroker, lost his job after his Republican boss decided to neglect his business to run for Senate (and preach the imminent total collapse of the US financial system), was unemployed for months (although never filed for unemployment) and, last I heard, was working at a car wash.

Neither one of us have ever been a part of these numbers.


IT'S TWO POLLS
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FILING FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
NOTHING


This has only been said 14,000 times in this thread alone.
 
2012-10-05 06:23:27 PM  

theknuckler_33: Big Man On Campus: I don't care how you calculate that 7.8%. It doesn't matter two spits how many people you have employed, what matters is what you have them doing...

From the actual report from the BLS:

Health care added 44,000 jobs in September. Job gains continued in ambulatory
health care services (+30,000) and hospitals (+8,000). Over the past year,
employment in health care has risen by 295,000.

In September, employment increased by 17,000 in transportation and warehousing.
Within the industry, there were job gains in transit and ground passenger
transportation (+9,000) and in warehousing and storage (+4,000).

Employment in financial activities edged up in September (+13,000), reflecting
modest job growth in credit intermediation (+6,000) and real estate (+7,000).

Manufacturing employment edged down in September (-16,000). On net, manufacturing
employment has been unchanged since April. In September, job losses occurred
in computer and electronic products (-6,000) and in printing and related
activities (-3,000).

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction,
wholesale trade, retail trade, information, professional and business services,
leisure and hospitality, and government, showed little change over the month.

So how are we ever supposed to feel good about the direction our economy is going? We're adding jobs in health care (Service industry) thanks to Obamacare, but losing manufacturing for the billionth time. Hooray! If we continue on this track, our biggest industry will be looking after each other's health instead of adding wealth to the nation by building things that the world wants.

Short version: Unemployment numbers mean crap, what is meaningful is what industries are expanding, and which ones are shrinking. The industries that do not bring in wealth are expanding, the industries that do make the country richer are continuing to shrink.

So... Services industry bad? That's what you are going with?


If all we have are service industries, then it is bad. Since we aren't going to be providing those services to other countries, all our wealth would eventually end up in China since those were we'll get all of our products. Buying cheap plastic crap from China is bargain shopping ourselves out of jobs.
 
2012-10-05 06:25:27 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: IT'S TWO POLLS
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FILING FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
NOTHING

This has only been said 14,000 times in this thread alone.




SHHHHH! Narrative is more important that facts.
 
2012-10-05 06:26:13 PM  

Bag of Hammers: The Jami Turman Fan Club: IT'S TWO POLLS
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FILING FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
NOTHING

This has only been said 14,000 times in this thread alone.



SHHHHH! Narrative is more important that facts.


THAN facts

dammit
 
2012-10-05 06:27:17 PM  

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


Or is it because of seasonal hires? Now is when some retail stores start prepping.
 
2012-10-05 06:29:38 PM  

Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.

Remember folks that Obama personally gave weapons to the drug cartels who prior to this were using spitballs and harsh language.


language wasn't even that harsh but then the SOB also taught them the dozens
 
2012-10-05 06:29:40 PM  
They really should start recounting the drug dealers and dick suckers around here as there has been a radical shift in who does what for how much. I have seen a larger number of new DS as opposed to new DD. That shows that the supply has increased or the usage per DS has decreased. It also shows that there is far more employment of DS than employment of DD opportunities as the wealthy DD do not create new jobs,only new servants. OR that the government has allowed an increase in supply to DD to allow a larger number of person to retire from their regular jobs and become DS. It is VERY confusing. It was so much easier when the dollar was based on oil.
 
2012-10-05 06:30:36 PM  

gerrychampoux: I'm sure all this September hiring had nothing to do with retailers hiring temporary employees for Halloween, Thanksgiving, Black Friday and the overall Christmas shopping season.


And Valentine's day
 
2012-10-05 06:33:27 PM  

TheRedMonkey: Or is it because of seasonal hires?


If only they could apply some adjustment for things that happen seasonally?

"Seasonal re-factoring"
"time of year adjustment"
 
2012-10-05 06:33:35 PM  
Actually, underemployment also includes retirees, students, disabled, and those who only have full time jobs. We don't count underemployment because it is worthless.
 
2012-10-05 06:36:47 PM  

mccallcl: Slampig: The unemployed people I know all tend to have something holding them back, like physical issues, drug addiction, or they think they're just too good for whatever job they can get.

If you are reading this and unemployed:

LEARN HOW TO PROGRAM ANDROID APPLICATIONS

You can do it at the library, or with the POS netbook you use to look at porn. It will take two months, then publish your fart app to Google Play. Then update your resume and watch your phone blow up. There is not a single city in the US that doesn't have dozens of android developer jobs open. $65K to start.

There, problem solved.


Found one.

Houston, TX

A cursory glance at dice.com shows 14 listings for "Android", of those 6 look like legit mobile programming jobs. Of those, I'd expect more than 2 months experience is needed.

Of course if you have a better site than dice.com for programming jobs (Linked-In is one I guess, but monster.com is not), I'd love to hear it.

/employed, just always keeping tabs on the market
 
2012-10-05 06:37:49 PM  

Gabrielmot: mccallcl: Slampig: The unemployed people I know all tend to have something holding them back, like physical issues, drug addiction, or they think they're just too good for whatever job they can get.

If you are reading this and unemployed:

LEARN HOW TO PROGRAM ANDROID APPLICATIONS

You can do it at the library, or with the POS netbook you use to look at porn. It will take two months, then publish your fart app to Google Play. Then update your resume and watch your phone blow up. There is not a single city in the US that doesn't have dozens of android developer jobs open. $65K to start.

There, problem solved.

Found one.

Houston, TX

A cursory glance at dice.com shows 14 listings for "Android", of those 6 look like legit mobile programming jobs. Of those, I'd expect more than 2 months experience is needed.

Of course if you have a better site than dice.com for programming jobs (Linked-In is one I guess, but monster.com is not), I'd love to hear it.

/employed, just always keeping tabs on the market


The catch is you have to live in Houston.

/ducks
 
2012-10-05 06:38:11 PM  
well, when you need tons of hand-out OBAMAPHONES, you gots to hire some people
 
2012-10-05 06:38:38 PM  

LoneWolf343: Actually, underemployment also includes retirees, students, disabled, and those who only have full time jobs. We don't count underemployment because it is worthless.


Oh, and the people who don't have traditional jobs, but earn income anyway, writers, artists, etc...
 
2012-10-05 06:40:40 PM  
BLAST FROM THE PAST:

News: Unemployment goes from 5.4% to 5.3% duringt the Clinton administration. Press reaction: "Halleluja! Greatest President in history! Peace and prosperity and jobs for everyone!"

News: Unemployment goes from 5.2% to 5.3% during the Bush II administration. Press reaction: "Horrible, horrible! Worst downturn since the Great Depression! We're all gonna starve to death!"

So Romney cleans Obama's clock in the debate, and 48 hours later, incredibly good "statistics" emerge. . . .

Suspicious?

Not really, I would say it is more like business as usual.
 
2012-10-05 06:42:10 PM  

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


It's a conspiracy!
 
2012-10-05 06:43:00 PM  

olddinosaur: BLAST FROM THE PAST:

News: Unemployment goes from 5.4% to 5.3% duringt the Clinton administration. Press reaction: "Halleluja! Greatest President in history! Peace and prosperity and jobs for everyone!"

News: Unemployment goes from 5.2% to 5.3% during the Bush II administration. Press reaction: "Horrible, horrible! Worst downturn since the Great Depression! We're all gonna starve to death!"

So Romney cleans Obama's clock in the debate, and 48 hours later, incredibly good "statistics" emerge. . . .

Suspicious?

Not really, I would say it is more like business as usual.


You took advantage of that big sale on tin foil at Winn-Dixie too huh?
 
2012-10-05 06:43:13 PM  
I believe the difference between U3 and U6 has been covered, and suddenly U6 is the Republitard talking point.

The fact is, unemployment is going down like subby's mom at the truck stop.
 
2012-10-05 06:44:47 PM  

LoneWolf343: LoneWolf343: Actually, underemployment also includes retirees, students, disabled, and those who only have fullpart time jobs. We don't count underemployment because it is worthless.

Oh, and the people who don't have traditional jobs, but earn income anyway, writers, artists, etc...


FTFM
 
2012-10-05 06:44:54 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]


I wonder what ever happened to pdx...
 
2012-10-05 06:46:37 PM  
Funny thing. I heard the teabag brigade talking about this today. Of course, it was a non-issue when Gov. Walker did the same thing. Then on top of that added a "waiting week" in which you can't get unemployment for what would otherwise be the first week in which you were eligible after losing your job, and decided not to count those people since they weren't collecting an UI claim for that week. But yeah, this time it's totally a scandal.
 
2012-10-05 06:47:33 PM  

olddinosaur: Suspicious?

Not really, I would say it is more like business as usual.


*favorite - red*
"Paranoid idiot unaware of the "hostile media effect""
 
2012-10-05 06:47:56 PM  

whidbey: Citations nee--

Oh HAI o5iiawah!


I dont need to cite anything. The white house invoked executive privilege in the Fast and Furious investigation. That means they were involved or had knowledge of the operation. Go fail somewhere else.

BSABSVR: Guns don't kill people.


They dont have to. You can be found partially liable for a crime if you were an accessory to or willfully aided and abetted those who committed the crime.

whidbey: OH.....*SNAP*


your "Oh snap" was just rebutted with a fact - for the 100th time. Just keep acknowledging that they are the same program. It makes you look even dumber.

Christian Bale: Gee, and who is it that hates stimulus and didn't want any more? (the Republicans)


Because we cant sustain an economy by printing and pumping $2Tn into it every single year? The stimulus was supposed to keep people off the breadlines. As far as a long-term sustainable economy, you cant run that off stimulus. We've had Auto bailouts, bank bailouts, green projects and infrastructure stimulus along with QE 1,2,3.

If it worked....then it would be working.
 
2012-10-05 06:48:07 PM  

impaler: TheRedMonkey: Or is it because of seasonal hires?

If only they could apply some adjustment for things that happen seasonally?

"Seasonal re-factoring"
"time of year adjustment"


Or just compare the numbers to last year. I think they had Halloween and Christmas in 2011 too.

Season hires being more than last year is a great sign. It means that businesses expect people to be buying more stuff than last year. Which means people are doing better than last year, since when people are doing better, they buy more stuff. And when people buy more stuff, our economy gets better. And when the economy gets better, people get more money. And when they have more money, they buy more stuff. And when they...

Sorry.

As far a manufacturing jobs go, people don't get it yet. If some piece of plastic cost 5c to make and sells for $1.99, only 5c of that goes to manufacturing. The money that goes for licensing, for trucking, for advertising, for the store...all of that is considered service, and all of that is here. So the Chinese do the work but 95% of the money stays here.

The Chinese have figured this out, incidentally. And they're not happy about it. People who you treat like slaves because their choices are work for pennies or starve are not going to be thankful.
 
2012-10-05 06:48:43 PM  
Clinton unemployment:

1-1993 7.3%
1-1997 5.3%
1-2001 4.2%
Bush

1-2001 4,2%
1-2005 5.2%
1-2009 7.7%
 
2012-10-05 06:52:59 PM  
Here are two tales, both using government data.

The case for recovery, showing employed people as a percent of the people who want to be employed, with the determination of who wants to be employed calculated in complex but well accepted ways:

research.stlouisfed.org

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

i359.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-05 06:53:20 PM  

RyogaM: Clinton unemployment:

1-1993 7.3%
1-1997 5.3%
1-2001 4.2%
Bush

1-2001 4,2%
1-2005 5.2%
1-2009 7.7%


Your numbers are off a tad:

1-1993 7.3%
1-1997 5.3%
1-2001 4.2%

Bush

1-2001 4,2%
1-2005 5.3%
1-2009 7.8%
 
2012-10-05 06:54:41 PM  

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


Is this the new stupid talking point? That a trend started under Bush is now Obama's fault.

Why, it's almost as if an entire segment of the population is reaching the age of retirement.
 
2012-10-05 06:55:07 PM  
I only job I was ever laid off from was during Obama's term, so Obama must be responsible.

/ Was hired for that job during Clinton's run, so, thanks Bubba !
 
2012-10-05 06:55:50 PM  
Cruzan speaking for me tonight. Pay little attention.
 
2012-10-05 07:00:56 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.


By that metric, *everyone* is unemployed. I'm a grad student, I make a grad student salary, and my current salary and my potential job offers all pay less than what I'm worth. I'm sure if you asked anyone, they would say that they're making less than they're worth.

Serious question, in the ideal world where people like you (or I) were counted as "unemployed", how would you even quantify "how much someone's worth"?
 
2012-10-05 07:12:56 PM  

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


It is a little be clear on this chart:

wegoted.com
 
2012-10-05 07:16:27 PM  
Economic recovery? Or terrorist job jab?
 
2012-10-05 07:17:24 PM  

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


Isn't that just showing that more people are retired now because of a large number of folks born around 1945-1950? That's not a useful graph.
 
2012-10-05 07:18:53 PM  

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


So you're saying that the "case for no recovery" means that all old people, children, and college students must work in order for there to be a recovery?

Well, that's dumb.
 
2012-10-05 07:20:52 PM  
I stopped looking at the unemployment rate a long time ago. The economy is going to grow naturally at about 2% due to population growth. The workforce participation rate is the number I watch now. Its the only consistent number I can rely on to give an accurate gauge.
 
2012-10-05 07:22:52 PM  

Thrag: Cry more.


what? why? But I'm not even a democrat

 
2012-10-05 07:25:44 PM  
Go learn Linux. We can't find employees. Nestec too. We have a hundred or so job openings.

/difficulty: must also be able to communicate with customers and not sound like a mole-person
//also, lets face it, some jobs aren't coming back, even with a good economy. They weren't really needed in the first place
 
2012-10-05 07:26:13 PM  

mrshowrules: RyogaM: Clinton unemployment:

Your numbers are off a tad:

1-1993 7.3%
1-1997 5.3%
1-2001 4.2%

Bush

1-2001 4,2%
1-2005 5.3%
1-2009 7.8%


Thanks for the correction.
 
2012-10-05 07:28:07 PM  

RyogaM: 1-2009 7.8%

Thanks for the correction.


The last one is small difference but having it match today's number eliminates a key speaking point for Conservatives.
 
2012-10-05 07:29:19 PM  

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


i359.photobucket.com

If you ignore the increasing population of retiring people.
growlersoftware.com
 
2012-10-05 07:30:30 PM  
A conspiracy of 2,000 Census employees to lower the unemployment rate. Right.

Republicans make Truthers look sane at this point.
 
2012-10-05 07:32:27 PM  
So, two honest questions:

1. How do we view/account for UNDERemployment as well as Unemployment? Or is someone with a shiatload of experience and qualifications and a degree losing their job in their industry and being forced to work part time at Home Depot not counted?

2. What percentage of the jobs filled are with people overqualified for their jobs?

It's great to throw out all these statistics, but unless you're growth also includes an upward trend in pay and so forth, then there's also something wrong.

Also, our economy and level of consumerism cannot be sustained if the population continues to trend downwards in pay scale and such.
 
2012-10-05 07:34:00 PM  
So by the logic of if you run out of benefits = you are no longer looking...

If we follow the GOP plan and cut off all unemployment benefits we reach 0% unemployment.
 
2012-10-05 07:41:46 PM  

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

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

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


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

Either way it doesn't matter. Obama promised that with the Recovery Plan we would be at ~5.6% unemployment and we aren't even close. If you think he deserves a second chance at getting employment down to 5% then vote for him, if not then vote him out.
 
2012-10-05 07:43:27 PM  

Kit Fister: So, two honest questions:

1. How do we view/account for UNDERemployment as well as Unemployment? Or is someone with a shiatload of experience and qualifications and a degree losing their job in their industry and being forced to work part time at Home Depot not counted?

2. What percentage of the jobs filled are with people overqualified for their jobs?

It's great to throw out all these statistics, but unless you're growth also includes an upward trend in pay and so forth, then there's also something wrong.

Also, our economy and level of consumerism cannot be sustained if the population continues to trend downwards in pay scale and such.


Honestly? At this time, we don't. We are still trying to get full employment, about 5%. Once you get closer to full employment, you'll see pressure for higher wages, and an inability to find the right employees which will lead to greater job mobility and a lessening of underemployment. It's a process. Fortunately, we've seen a drop from 10% in Oct.'09 to 7.8% today for Sept. '12, a drop of 2.2% in three years. If we maintain this growth, in three years time we could be at 5.6%, and starting to see underemployment fading and see pressure for higher wages. Think of this, corporate profits are at a historic high right now, but there is no pressure for them to share those profits with their employees, in the form of higher wages, because of the high employment. Give it time, and that will change.
 
2012-10-05 07:49:10 PM  

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

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

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

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

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


Citation needed.
 
2012-10-05 07:49:15 PM  
So, since the jobless numbers are very obviously bullshiat to make Obama's job numbers look good ahead of the election, are any Obama voters actually pissed off about this?

I'm guessing not, but it is nice to hope some of those people aren't completely naive.
 
2012-10-05 07:50:12 PM  

PerilousApricot: 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.

By that metric, *everyone* is unemployed. I'm a grad student, I make a grad student salary, and my current salary and my potential job offers all pay less than what I'm worth. I'm sure if you asked anyone, they would say that they're making less than they're worth.

Serious question, in the ideal world where people like you (or I) were counted as "unemployed", how would you even quantify "how much someone's worth"?


I'm not an economist, so I can't give you a specific formula (though I'd hope one could be created.)  At best, I'm giving everyone here anecdotal evidence of someone that is being hurt deeply by the economy at this specific moment, and is not counted in any stats.  No bitterness, no blame... just saying the stats aren't accurate.  The stats including me or being more accurate doesn't HELP me, so this really isn't a personal thing.
 
I guess I'm going to kinda frustrate you with my answer to your honest question... in that its really going to boil down to something close to "I don't know".  But I'll give it a try...
 
Ok, you have your unemployment figures.  That's the base.
 
Then, I think you need to take average or median salaries for people with X experience in Y industry at Z position/job.  Then count the people with said qualities and see what they're making.
 
Lets say for arguments sake I have 11 years experience in IT management of some sort.  We can get close to saying I should probably be making $80k - $100k (I'm pulling the numbers out of my arse, but I'm close... but that doesn't matter.  Call it $25k if you want.)
 
Now by "should be making" what I mean is in a healthy economy.  A normal economy.  Not a boom or bust.  I do believe we can come up with this number in real time.
 
But we aren't in a healthy economy.  So now I'm working at a car wash (using a poster's comment above) making, what, $20k full time?
 
So at the very least notch me as one person "underemployed".  Or better yet, use the $90k - $20k to come up with the fact that I'm $70k underemployed.
 
Ok, none of this is perfect.  And it may take so much work its an exercise in futility.  I don't know.  I'm just saying the situation exists:
 
In a healthy economy someone WOULD hire me for $90k because of my experience/skillset.  But because the economy is farked I can only make $20k.
 
Again not perfect, and I'm not claiming the above is a complete scientific formula.  But SOMETHING like this should be included in any stats dealing with how people are doing.
 
/Also, none of the above is my specific situation.
 
2012-10-05 07:50:21 PM  

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


You're right. It's a conspiracy. Wake up sheeple!
 
2012-10-05 07:51:29 PM  

Kit Fister: So, two honest questions:

1. How do we view/account for UNDERemployment as well as Unemployment? Or is someone with a shiatload of experience and qualifications and a degree losing their job in their industry and being forced to work part time at Home Depot not counted?

2. What percentage of the jobs filled are with people overqualified for their jobs?

It's great to throw out all these statistics, but unless you're growth also includes an upward trend in pay and so forth, then there's also something wrong.

Also, our economy and level of consumerism cannot be sustained if the population continues to trend downwards in pay scale and such.


The U3 is just one indicator. It isn't the GDP, poverty rate, average income, mean income, foreclosures etc... etc... It is just one indicator but it has been measured the same way historically and also across other countries. It is 7.6% in Canada for instance. It was 7.7% in October 1976 in the US for another example. It generally reflects how hard it is to get work if you want work. That's it. It is a limited indicator but it is pretty darn accurate and good for comparative purposes.

What is really interesting is that it is the economic indicator that the GOP latched on to very aggressively when Obama took over as proof that the DNC were farking everything up. Also, it was one of the last indicators the GOP was clinging to when all the other indicators were improving. There are still other indicators (food stamps for instance) that you can use to show Obama sucks but this was the last one they have been using consistently.

In summary, it is becoming easier for Americans who want work to find work today. Also the rate at which the rate is dropping is also hopeful. However, the U3 by itself does not indicate the health of the economy.
 
2012-10-05 07:54:27 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.

 


So you must be one of those people too abysmally stupid to actually read anything longer than a headline.

The number of people entering the workforce grew by a significant margin above what was expected. So far from dropping out, people instead actually started working. So your point is not only wrong, but paints you as an absolute cretin.
 
2012-10-05 07:54:59 PM  

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


Soooo.... you realize, there's not just one, but TWO whole threads discussing why your understanding of this situation is wrong, bad, and foolish, right?
 
2012-10-05 08:01:24 PM  

keylock71: skullkrusher:
no, do I sound mad?

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


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

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



Are you kidding? That loser stalks me all the time. I just returned the favor by pointing out that troll sounded just like skullkrusher, and magically he appears a minute later to deny
 
2012-10-05 08:02:51 PM  

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


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

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

My god, you are a complete farking stooge.


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

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

You are either colossally stupid of lying through your teeth.

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation needed.


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

jst3p: I call bullshiat.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation needed.

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Look how stupid you are!

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Deep thoughts from a Fark Independent.

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

Bush hit an all time high unemployment rate your reaction:

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

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

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

Republican humor!


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

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

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

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

/Oracle employee for about 5 years.


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

s2s2s2: NateGrey: Nabb1: NateGrey: Nabb1: Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...

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

Deep thoughts from a Fark Independent.

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

Bush hit an all time high unemployment rate your reaction:

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

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

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

Republican humor!

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


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

Link
 
2012-10-05 10:08:35 PM  
impaler

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

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


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


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

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

Link


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

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

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


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

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

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


The data for contributions was already searched.

They found 2.

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

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


Polls are sampling.

Sampling is statistics.

Polls are a huge portion of statistics.

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

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



If you ignore the increasing population of retiring people.


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

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

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


At least two at BLS have given to Obama.

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

tony41454: Breitbart actually has people checking facts


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

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

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

tony41454: Mrtraveler01

tony41454: Breitbart actually has people checking facts


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


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

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

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


Does the Mainstream Media include Fox News?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link


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

www.tradingeconomics.com

Sorry, nowhere near "near-recession" economy.

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

tony41454: Bill Murray said I was weird

tony41454: Bill Murray said I was weird

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

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

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

So what's it going to be, scumbag?

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


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

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

Polls are sampling.

Sampling is statistics.

Polls are a huge portion of statistics.

People are really this ignorant?


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

It's almost as if they were educated in gov't-run schools, and brainwashed to accepting what these people say from a young age.
 
2012-10-05 10:39:16 PM  

legalgus: And, yes, those who have stopped looking should be factored in bringing the number to almost 11%.


Yeah, I saw Romney make that stupid point on TV too.

It would make sense if you forget the fact that people have aged and retired over the course of 4 years.
 
2012-10-05 10:40:11 PM  

Lernaeus: How anyone believes gov't math astounds me.

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


2/10

The "govt-run schools" was a dead giveaway for me.
 
2012-10-05 10:40:14 PM  
legalgus

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


THIS. 7.8% is still not good enough to reelect someone over. Gas prices are also up. Everything else about the economy still sucks. Thank you, Mr. President! It was funny (in a figurative way) to see Romney yank Obama's pants down in front of 65 million viewers the other night. I bet old Chris Matthews DID NOT get a tingle up his leg that night!
 
2012-10-05 10:40:26 PM  
This thread has become about as stupid as a YouTube comments thread.

Can't we all agree that the unemployment rate, both U3 and U5, dropping, is a GOOD THING?
 
2012-10-05 10:42:00 PM