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 164
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-05 09:49:31 AM  
11 votes:
Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...
2012-10-05 11:28:57 AM  
10 votes:
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 12:08:51 PM  
7 votes:

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 11:24:22 AM  
7 votes:

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 11:33:02 AM  
6 votes:
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 10:28:13 AM  
6 votes:
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 01:07:24 PM  
5 votes:
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 01:06:00 PM  
5 votes:
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 11:39:19 AM  
4 votes:

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 11:33:05 AM  
4 votes:

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 08:16:45 PM  
3 votes:
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 04:03:06 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:39:52 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:34:59 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:34:02 PM  
3 votes:
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 03:20:37 PM  
3 votes:
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 03:12:09 PM  
3 votes:
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 12:11:00 PM  
3 votes:

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 11:39:40 AM  
3 votes:

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.

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

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 10:17:43 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:42:48 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:24:06 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:54:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:17:24 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:52:59 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:44:43 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:38:18 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:37:24 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:32:25 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:25:48 PM  
2 votes:
2012-10-05 04:20:32 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:20:02 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:11:12 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:03:32 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:48:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:39:20 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:35:17 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:34:58 PM  
2 votes:
i1151.photobucket.com
2012-10-05 03:20:23 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:16:15 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:13:00 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:32:40 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:01:48 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:48:26 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:28:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:14:25 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:13:50 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:11:10 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:26:58 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:13:50 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:33:45 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:29:17 AM  
2 votes:
Odd, the Department of Labor said that's specifically not the case. Which is it? I'm confused.
2012-10-06 02:24:46 PM  
1 votes:

Oldiron_79: If you REALLY think the economy is good and the unemployment numbers aren't down just because people have ran out of unemployment checks just look at the jobs "section" of your local dead tree newspaper. Its a page these days instead of a section.


FYI, that's not how unemployment is calculated. It wasn't when Dubya was crowing about the unemployment rate going down either.
2012-10-06 01:46:04 AM  
1 votes:

theknuckler_33: Wrong. There were about 40 million 65+ year old Americans as of the 2010 census... that number is certainly in the 50 million range now just two years later. Again, nothing wrong with the chart, what is wrong is what you are taking away from it. Including them in the 'working age' denominator of a labor calculation is a pathetic attempt to deceive people.


It's like BullBearMS is lying sack of shat or something
2012-10-06 12:30:12 AM  
1 votes:

theknuckler_33: BullBearMS: impaler: Hate to burst your bubble

Don't worry. Your graph showing a steady rate of people retiring instead of a sudden burst only enforces my point.

There has been no sudden surge of boomers retiring.

Sudden surge? Who said anything about a sudden surge. That number is going up and will continue to go up. There were 40 million Americans over 65 in the 2010 census, that number is closer to 50 million now. Obviously 37 million of them are already collecting SS. Either way, that 50 million people 65 and older that are considered 'working age' in your charts. That makes the ratio low. The ratio is artificially low because it includes 50 million people who will never look for work again. It is a BAD ratio to use as an indicator of the labor market at a time when the ageing population is increasing.


Now all you need to do is cite real numbers that show the percentage of people too old for work plus people too young for work has changed significantly over the past four years, which led to the large and sudden drop in the percentage of people employed.

dl.dropbox.com

I'll be waiting for you to cite real numbers instead of just making up bullshiat excuses.
2012-10-06 12:16:40 AM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: impaler: Hate to burst your bubble

Don't worry. Your graph showing a steady rate of people retiring instead of a sudden burst only enforces my point.

There has been no sudden surge of boomers retiring.


Sudden surge? Who said anything about a sudden surge. That number is going up and will continue to go up. There were 40 million Americans over 65 in the 2010 census, that number is closer to 50 million now. Obviously 37 million of them are already collecting SS. Either way, that 50 million people 65 and older that are considered 'working age' in your charts. That makes the ratio low. The ratio is artificially low because it includes 50 million people who will never look for work again. It is a BAD ratio to use as an indicator of the labor market at a time when the ageing population is increasing.
2012-10-06 12:14:22 AM  
1 votes:

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


Um, dude that's presumed guilt until proven innocence. I wouldn't be waving around the word "fail" so loosely.


I dont need to cite anything.


Um, actually you do, or you would be asked to drop the point altogether. We could really care if it's your opinion. That isn't evidence.

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.

Actually no, it hasn't, and certainly not more than once.

Failtroll is fail.
2012-10-06 12:08:34 AM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: theknuckler_33: It would be nice if you would acknowledge the fallacy of the other two charts though. It would restore a bit of my faith in humanity that some people accept logical arguments.

Apparently, you're trying to claim that people have never been born or retired until now, or something?

This is pretty much the first year in which the baby boom generation will start to retire, so you can give up on pretending that the boomers skewed the data since the vast majority of them are still working.

[dl.dropbox.com image 800x480]

What exactly is wrong with this chart?


Wrong. There were about 40 million 65+ year old Americans as of the 2010 census... that number is certainly in the 50 million range now just two years later. Again, nothing wrong with the chart, what is wrong is what you are taking away from it. Including them in the 'working age' denominator of a labor calculation is a pathetic attempt to deceive people.
2012-10-05 11:59:32 PM  
1 votes:

impaler: Hate to burst your bubble


Don't worry. Your graph showing a steady rate of people retiring instead of a sudden burst only enforces my point.

There has been no sudden surge of boomers retiring. As a matter of fact, the boomers have just begun to reach 65 and a huge number of them are planning to continue to work past 65.

more Boomers are worried about reaching their financial goals, with two thirds expecting to delay retirement.
2012-10-05 11:51:53 PM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: This is pretty much the first year in which the baby boom generation will start to retire, so you can give up on pretending that the boomers skewed the data since the vast majority of them are still working.


Hate to burst your bubble

growlersoftware.com
2012-10-05 11:33:45 PM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: theknuckler_33: Again, real charts, real data, bullshiat use of them.

[dl.dropbox.com image 800x480]

So when people are unemployed for so long that they give up looking and no longer count as unemployed in the official "unemployment number" that isn't bullshiat too, I take it?


a) the bolded part is NOT how the official unemployment number is calculated. It has nothing to do with weeks unemployed. b) that chart is totally legit and it is a real problem. I never complained about that one. The most generous thing I can say about that is that it has basically stabilized. Hopefully that will improve in the next 6-12 months.

It would be nice if you would acknowledge the fallacy of the other two charts though. It would restore a bit of my faith in humanity that some people accept logical arguments.
2012-10-05 10:49:18 PM  
1 votes:

tony41454: THIS. 7.8% is still not good enough to reelect someone over. Gas prices are also up.


growlersoftware.com

I'll be here all day
2012-10-05 10:45:25 PM  
1 votes:

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


Since we entered the biggest recession since the great depression.

Fark idiot.
2012-10-05 09:50:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:46:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:45:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:36:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:27:38 PM  
1 votes:
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 09:18:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:45:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:27:20 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:13:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:54:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:51:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:50:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:49:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:43:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:29:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:18:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:54:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:48:43 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:48:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:40:40 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:22:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:15:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:08:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:37:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:30:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:16:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:16:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:56:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:53:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:49:27 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:48:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:47:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:46:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:37:00 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:36:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:36:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:34:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:33:58 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:30:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:29:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:29:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:22:58 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:21:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:21:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:13:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:04:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:01:34 PM  
1 votes:
how much more recovery can we take
2012-10-05 03:58:44 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:57:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:54:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:51:34 PM  
1 votes:
Just wait until WND notices that this unemployment report is full of ARABIC NUMERALS.
2012-10-05 03:51:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:48:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:47:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:46:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:46:21 PM  
1 votes:

GhostFish: How does this make sense?


Not a requirement for the right.
2012-10-05 03:45:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:42:43 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:41:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:41:04 PM  
1 votes:
The economy is finally starting to show signs of improvement and conservative trolls are OUTRAGED.

/Boy do they love America
2012-10-05 03:40:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:40:20 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:39:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:34:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:32:14 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:26:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:26:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:26:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:22:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:21:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:19:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:19:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:19:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:13:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:10:38 PM  
1 votes:
Unemployment under Romney is 47%.
2012-10-05 03:05:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:04:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:04:44 PM  
1 votes:
Heh... These numbers have got the GOP shills in a tizzy, haven't they?
2012-10-05 02:19:53 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:10:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:02:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:52:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:37:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:35:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:26:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:17:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:52:09 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:30:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:24:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:24:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:18:50 PM  
1 votes:

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


Self-assessment is not a scientific method.
2012-10-05 12:16:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:16:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:06:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:53:57 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:50:48 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:33:47 AM  
1 votes:
If you all really believe unemployment is at 7.8%, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-05 11:26:11 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:25:27 AM  
1 votes:
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
2012-10-05 09:58:54 AM  
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 164 of 164 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report