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.

(Slate)   After further review, it now appears that the September job numbers were, in fact, wrong. Fark: Turns out there were even more people working than at first reported   (slate.com) divider line 157
    More: Followup, foreign policy  
•       •       •

4494 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Oct 2012 at 12:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-11 10:05:58 AM
To be fair, that's how jobs reports have gone for the past two years.

NPR's reporting goes like this:

"Jobs numbers were up slightly BUT IT IS DOOM DOOM DOOOM AND YOU ARE ALL GOING TO DIE IN POVERTY. Additionally, last months figures were more optimistic than reported."
 
2012-10-11 10:07:11 AM
Sure. If you believe that when an article claims something is "more likely" it is the same as them proving something, okay.

Look at the total number of people working, that is relevant metric.
 
2012-10-11 10:09:55 AM
Well. This good news must be fake, because it hurts the GOP narrative.
 
2012-10-11 10:15:58 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-11 10:18:17 AM
Republicans: We got elected to bring jobs! Jobs for all!
Facts: OK, now there are more jobs
Republicans: NOOOOOOO That can't be!!!
 
2012-10-11 10:19:45 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Sure. If you believe that when an article claims something is "more likely" it is the same as them proving something, okay.

Look at the total number of people working, that is relevant metric.


If only they supported this in the article like this statement supporting it in the article:

On average, the two rounds of revisions that occur in the two months after the initial number lead to a change of a bit over 50,000 jobs relative to the initial estimate.
 
2012-10-11 10:47:20 AM
Only someone who truly loves this nation could so vehemently pray for its citizens to suffer mightily in the name of "yay my team!"
 
2012-10-11 10:59:02 AM
This is good news, and if you don't think it's good news, you're a cock.
 
2012-10-11 11:00:16 AM
This is bad news...for Romn...no, who am I kidding? He'll spin it in such a bullshiat way that he had credit for it, and PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE HIM.
 
2012-10-11 11:03:21 AM
 
2012-10-11 11:08:17 AM
YOU LIE!

/just thought we'd get that out of the way
 
2012-10-11 12:20:03 PM
"Whoa, that pack of bald faced lies went over way better than expected. Pump it up a bit"
 
2012-10-11 12:20:31 PM
static4.businessinsider.com
"Curses! Foiled again! I'll get you next time, Obama!
 
2012-10-11 12:20:50 PM

randomjsa: "Whoa, that pack of bald faced lies went over way better than expected. Pump it up a bit"


Wrong thread. This is about the jobs report, not Romney's debate performance.
 
2012-10-11 12:20:57 PM

xanadian: This is bad news...for Romn...no, who am I kidding? He'll spin it in such a bullshiat way that he had credit for it, and PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE HIM.


Romney's perfection performance at last week's debate inspired nore americans to get up and get jobs.
 
2012-10-11 12:21:15 PM
The Bush Recovery continues despite black guy's opposition!!
 
2012-10-11 12:21:35 PM

BunkoSquad: Republicans: We got elected to bring jobs! Jobs for all!
Facts: OK, now there are more jobs
Republicans: NOOOOOOO That can't be!!!


I read this in Stephen Colbert's voice.
 
2012-10-11 12:22:25 PM
Americans are getting jobs because they know that President Romney won't tax their hard-earned money!
 
2012-10-11 12:22:39 PM
Comforting lies, please.
 
2012-10-11 12:23:55 PM
expect these numbers to rise by at least 2 cause i just reported 2 new hires to the USDL.
 
2012-10-11 12:24:04 PM
The Republicans' hammering the "bad" jobs numbers and calling the good ones false is ironic, considering they are so focused on improving the jobs market...because optimism fuels economic growth. By contnually being pessimistic and portraying the economy as bad, they are (potentially) scaring people into not spending their disposable money.

But of course, this all assumes that the GOP really does want to improve the economy and create jobs, as opposed to just wanting to get in power.
 
2012-10-11 12:24:47 PM
Also, it should be pointed out that these people with jobs are now getting paid off. Follow the money and you will find it goes all the way to the Federal Reserve... all the way to The Top!
 
2012-10-11 12:25:04 PM
I can't believe how hurtful this election is to my friends and family.
 
2012-10-11 12:26:48 PM
Thats old news, everybody this morning is claiming a conspiracy, data showed initial jobless claims at their lowest in more than four and a half years, the theory is some big Lib state did not report their numbers. heads are 'sploding as we speak
 
2012-10-11 12:27:02 PM

Isitoveryet: expect these numbers to rise by at least 2 cause i just reported 2 new hires to the USDL.


i just made a new hire

in my pants
 
2012-10-11 12:27:55 PM

NeverDrunk23: xanadian: This is bad news...for Romn...no, who am I kidding? He'll spin it in such a bullshiat way that he had credit for it, and PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE HIM.

Romney's perfection performance at last week's debate inspired nore americans to get up and get jobs.


Anticipation of a Republican controlled House, Senate, and White House is lubricating the economy faster than toe tapping in a men's room drops drawers.
 
2012-10-11 12:28:03 PM

what_now: Well. This good news must be fake, because it hurts the GOP narrative.


Heh... no shiat.

Did you hear Scott Brown say we were in recession for the last three years and it was Elizabeth Warren's fault last night?

It's like these people live in an alternative reality...
 
2012-10-11 12:28:31 PM
I applaud the numerous House Abortion Bills for making this happen.
 
2012-10-11 12:29:00 PM

randomjsa: "Whoa, that pack of bald faced lies went over way better than expected. Pump it up a bitI'm a biatch"

 
2012-10-11 12:29:08 PM

impaler: Jobless claims fall to lowest in four and a half years


Came to post this.
 
2012-10-11 12:29:43 PM
I got a slightly irrelevant question, Mitt claims there are 23 million people unemployed. And he claim he will create 12m new job. So, he is basically saying he does not care about 11m unemployed people. How come that has not become an issue?
 
2012-10-11 12:29:43 PM
I for one am just going to trust Jack's (Welch) Complete Lack of Evidence.
 
2012-10-11 12:30:07 PM
The conspiracy thickens.
 
2012-10-11 12:30:09 PM
weknowmemes.com

Sorry, couldn't resist.
 
2012-10-11 12:30:10 PM

Trivia Jockey: But of course, this all assumes that the GOP really does want to improve the economy and create jobs, as opposed to just wanting to get in power.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously, for the past 2-3 years they've been so godverdamnt transparent with their desire to see everything fail, at this point it's just become cliched to type it out.
 
2012-10-11 12:30:14 PM

Empty Matchbook: The Bush Recovery continues despite black guy's opposition!!


There you go!
 
2012-10-11 12:30:31 PM
OK, so who's been hiring? Are they paying "livable wages"? These are questions that nobody can seem to answer.
 
2012-10-11 12:30:34 PM
Yes, I really trust your unsourced statisticals.
 
2012-10-11 12:30:40 PM

xanadian: This is bad news...for Romn...no, who am I kidding? He'll spin it in such a bullshiat way that he had credit for it, and PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE HIM.


Look, if you're so partisan that you won't give any credit to Romney, even after he got bin Laden, then you've lost all touch with reality.
 
2012-10-11 12:30:59 PM

FrailChild: impaler: Jobless claims fall to lowest in four and a half years

"The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell sharply last week to the lowest level in more than four and a half years"

People know they're not working and blowing sunshine up their ass with massaged statistics is not going to change what people do in November.

[chart.apis.google.com image 594x200] 

Notice the trend since the Republican congress got elected in 2010? :) Also notice how well unemployment correlates with Republican controlled congress historically? More and more people are waking up...

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x616]


This! The 47% who just wants to suck off of the full, luscious teats of the 53% are avoiding work for as long as they can, but as they suckle on our delicious milk of money they know that they can only hold on so long before real leadership returns, and they must return to work.
 
2012-10-11 12:31:03 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Sure. If you believe that when an article claims something is "more likely" it is the same as them proving something, okay.

Look at the total number of people working, that is relevant metric.



So, using this relevant metric, please explain the impact of the Bush Era tax cuts and Trickle Down economics in general.
 
2012-10-11 12:31:08 PM

randomjsa: "Whoa, that pack of bald faced lies went over way better than expected. Pump it up a bit"


You referring to Jack or your usual posts in every thread?

I would say you're overestimating in either case.
 
2012-10-11 12:31:43 PM
Well I guess the Republican narrative that the unemployment rate fell because "people gave up looking for jobs" is true. That is usually what happens when a person finds a job.
 
2012-10-11 12:32:04 PM

keylock71: Did you hear Scott Brown say we were in recession for the last three years and it was Elizabeth Warren's fault last night?


I actually saw that ballgargling shiatlord's commercial about the asbestos case last night. farking disgusting.
 
2012-10-11 12:32:34 PM

Smeggy Smurf: OK, so who's been hiring? Are they paying "livable wages"? These are questions that nobody can seem to answer.


A) Fact checkers. B) Yes. C) I just answered it.

You seem concerned.
 
2012-10-11 12:32:35 PM

mayIFark: I got a slightly irrelevant question, Mitt claims there are 23 million people unemployed. And he claim he will create 12m new job. So, he is basically saying he does not care about 11m unemployed people. How come that has not become an issue?


What he doesn't say is he'll stop conflating U6 with U3 and magically claim that he created 12 million new jobs.

Kinda like what Fox did the other week, but in reverse.

m.static.newsvine.com
 
2012-10-11 12:32:40 PM
I personally don't know anybody that is out of work right now. In 2009 and 2010 I knew of a few here and there. Now it seems like everybody that ACTUALLY wants a job has one. I hear employers constantly complaining about not being able to find qualified help. For that matter I know at least 5 Baby Boomers who are purposefully in "early retirement" collecting unemployment. One guy that I worked with has been in "early retirement" for 3 years now. He's 64. I wonder how much of this crap is going on?
 
2012-10-11 12:32:46 PM

heavymetal: Well I guess the Republican narrative that the unemployment rate fell because "people gave up looking for jobs" is true. That is usually what happens when a person finds a job.


win
 
2012-10-11 12:33:12 PM
randomjsa
"Whoa, that pack of bald faced lies went over way better than expected. Pump it up a bit"


I know you're a trolling heap of Republican shiat, but your quote highlights an interesting point:

Republicans were voted into the House/Senate in 2010 based on their promises of more jobs. Now that the American employment landscape has improved, Republicans could easily (though, as could be expected, inaccurately) take credit for the jobs boost.

But no.

Republicans instead cry that the numbers are wrong, that it's a conspiracy to bolster Obama. You morons had an opportunity at a crucial point in the election season to gain some much-needed approval. But it's more important for Republicans to make Obama look bad, than to make yourselves look good.

Your party is no longer defined by your own ideas. It is now merely defined as opposition to everything left/lib/Dem.

The hilarious part is that it is beyond the intellectual capacity of most Republicans how you've allowed the American Left to control and define your identity. If Obama were to say "Democrats are pro-breathing", you people would strangle yourselves by morning; that he doesn't do that is extremely generous of him, and you mouth-breathers owe him an enormous debt of gratitude for it.
 
2012-10-11 12:33:47 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Sure. If you believe that when an article claims something is "more likely" it is the same as them proving something, okay.

Look at the total number of people working, that is relevant metric.


I know it's crazy that with unemployment going down for the last 4 years that it would just happen to continue this trend. Shenanigans i say, shenanigans.
 
2012-10-11 12:33:55 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: YOU LIE!
/just thought we'd get that out of the way


ROMNEY WON THE DEBATE ROMNEY WON THE DEBATE ROMNEY WON THE DEBATE
 
2012-10-11 12:34:26 PM

Jackson Herring: ballgargling shiatlord


NTTAWWT
 
2012-10-11 12:34:26 PM
Nana na naaaaaaa liberal media strikes again!

Does it bring the unemployment number down? If not, then unfortunately the people who should be caring won't care.
 
2012-10-11 12:34:49 PM

heavymetal: Well I guess the Republican narrative that the unemployment rate fell because "people gave up looking for jobs" is true. That is usually what happens when a person finds a job.


Funny!
 
myc
2012-10-11 12:34:56 PM
www.slate.com

In the interest of bipartisanship, I would just like to say that I would hit it, and that I believe this is something we can all agree on.
 
2012-10-11 12:35:48 PM

Jackson Herring: keylock71: Did you hear Scott Brown say we were in recession for the last three years and it was Elizabeth Warren's fault last night?

I actually saw that ballgargling shiatlord's commercial about the asbestos case last night. farking disgusting.


Yeah, it's pathetic... Warren's counter ad pretty much shows Brown to be the desperate douche bag he is.

Love that he got booed when he tried to pull a zinger and claim it was Warren's regulations that are causing all our financial problems.

It's like he went out of his way to look like a condescending, arrogant douche in every debate so far.
 
2012-10-11 12:36:12 PM
But what about the Tampa Bay male prostitutes? Who is following their plight post-RNC convention?
 
2012-10-11 12:36:30 PM
So are conservatards going to switch back to their original narrative if/when the unemployment rate ticks up next month (due to more people re-entering the workforce, etc.)? Afterall, the data is only legitimate if it supports your argument, right?
 
2012-10-11 12:37:29 PM

keylock71: Jackson Herring: keylock71: Did you hear Scott Brown say we were in recession for the last three years and it was Elizabeth Warren's fault last night?

I actually saw that ballgargling shiatlord's commercial about the asbestos case last night. farking disgusting.

Yeah, it's pathetic... Warren's counter ad pretty much shows Brown to be the desperate douche bag he is.

Love that he got booed when he tried to pull a zinger and claim it was Warren's regulations that are causing all our financial problems.

It's like he went out of his way to look like a condescending, arrogant douche in every debate so far.


I was talking about this with a certain farkette last night. If Brown is going to claim that Warren is in the pocket of Big Business, maybe she should come out at the debate and say that Brown doesn't drive a truck?
 
2012-10-11 12:37:46 PM

keylock71: Jackson Herring: keylock71: Did you hear Scott Brown say we were in recession for the last three years and it was Elizabeth Warren's fault last night?

I actually saw that ballgargling shiatlord's commercial about the asbestos case last night. farking disgusting.

Yeah, it's pathetic... Warren's counter ad pretty much shows Brown to be the desperate douche bag he is.

Love that he got booed when he tried to pull a zinger and claim it was Warren's regulations that are causing all our financial problems.

It's like he went out of his way to look like a condescending, arrogant douche in every debate so far.


Hey, it worked for Mitt Romney.
 
2012-10-11 12:38:12 PM
And now foreclosures are at the lowest level in 5 years. Just how deep does the 0bama election conspiracy go?
 
2012-10-11 12:38:34 PM

myc: [www.slate.com image 568x346]

In the interest of bipartisanship, I would just like to say that I would hit it, and that I believe this is something we can all agree on.


i.huffpost.com 

/ knees. sharp. unhittable.
 
2012-10-11 12:39:21 PM

keylock71: what_now: Well. This good news must be fake, because it hurts the GOP narrative.

Heh... no shiat.

Did you hear Scott Brown say we were in recession for the last three years and it was Elizabeth Warren's fault last night?

It's like these people live in an alternative reality...


No, I skipped it to have dinner with a friend I haven't seen in years.

Really, it was a good call.
 
2012-10-11 12:39:23 PM

coeyagi: But what about the Tampa Bay male prostitutes? Who is following their plight post-RNC convention?


A private plane marked EIB with a pronounced list to one side provided the most succulent with free passage to Santo Domingo.
 
2012-10-11 12:39:28 PM

Snatch Bandergrip: If Obama were to say "Democrats are pro-breathing", you people would strangle yourselves by morning; that he doesn't do that is extremely generous of him, and you mouth-breathers owe him an enormous debt of gratitude for it.


Damn, that's a good post! Crunchy at first, succulent, with no bitter aftertaste.
 
2012-10-11 12:39:44 PM
I don't get it. The GOP should be shouting these numbers from the rooftops - "Look what we did! Unemployment is down, more people have jobs; just like we promised!"

Instead, it's about number-rigging and political gamesmanship (and fairly retarded gamesmanship at that - like playing wiffle ball with a chessboard). The GOP would rather tear down "the libs" than build themselves up.

// and yes, I recognize that people pin the number on the president
// it's not like the GOP can't say "Well, it wasn't the president, it was [these bills] we passed" to counter
// like the "Job-Saving Bill to Limit Abortion and Unionization"
 
2012-10-11 12:42:13 PM
The sad part is, none of this news is helping Obama right now. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the Romney campaign were calling "foul" even before the numbers were published. Everyone is so focused on that debate, Romney now stands a 1 in 3 chance of actually winning this election. The Romney signs are sprouting like weeds around SW Virginia (where Obama won in 2008). Being a Democrat around here getting harder and harder.
 
2012-10-11 12:42:38 PM

sprawl15: Jackson Herring: ballgargling shiatlord

NTTAWWT


Jackson's just saying that the GOP is made of wibbly-wobbly testicley-westicley stuff.
 
2012-10-11 12:43:20 PM

Jackson Herring: I was talking about this with a certain farkette last night. If Brown is going to claim that Warren is in the pocket of Big Business, maybe she should come out at the debate and say that Brown doesn't drive a truck?


"I've seen your centerfold, Sen. Brown, and it's obvious what you're compensating for with your pick-up truck..."
 
2012-10-11 12:43:42 PM
Turns out

Sorry, subby, I don't think those words mesh with the story, which acknowledges that the whole thing may just be "wishful thinking."

But I guess this wouldn't have been a feel-good story for you: With a week to think up new responses to claims that the BLS numbers can't be trusted, we've now come up with a theory that the September job numbers were wrong because we surmise that BLS numbers can't be trusted
 
2012-10-11 12:44:06 PM

LarryDan43: And now foreclosures are at the lowest level in 5 years. Just how deep does the 0bama election conspiracy go?


Obviously, Obama is the one buying all those stocks on Wall St. and that's why our government debt is so high. You don't really think that the economy, being so ravaged that it is, woud allow for Tom, Dick or Harry to buy such a volume of shares and thus push the DOW way over 10,000, do you?
 
2012-10-11 12:44:41 PM

myc: [www.slate.com image 568x346]

In the interest of bipartisanship, I would just like to say that I would hit it, and that I believe this is something we can all agree on.


I'd like to second the motion of my esteemed colleague from the intrawebs, myc. I think it's time to put this partisan rancor aside and, to paraphrase President Kennedy, ask not what your country can do for you, ask who in this country you would do.
 
2012-10-11 12:44:47 PM

myc: [www.slate.com image 568x346]

In the interest of bipartisanship, I would just like to say that I would hit it, and that I believe this is something we can all agree on.


Oh, si. Muy si.
 
2012-10-11 12:44:48 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Sure. If you believe that when an article claims something is "more likely" it is the same as them proving something, okay.

Look at the total number of people working, that is relevant metric.


The % of the US population 62 years and older increased 21% from 2000 to 2010. The % of the US population between 25 and 44 years of age actually DECREASED over 3% in the same decade.

When you have an aging population with more and more people retiring, the "total number of people working" is a flawed statistic for determining the health of the labor market.

But you knew that.
 
2012-10-11 12:44:54 PM

HAMMERTOE: Damn, that's a good post! Crunchy at first, succulent, with no bitter aftertaste.


Aww, you're sweet. :) Though, I'm certainly not the first to trot out the "If Obama ___, Republicans would ___" meme before.
 
2012-10-11 12:44:59 PM

Parthenogenetic: myc: [www.slate.com image 568x346]

In the interest of bipartisanship, I would just like to say that I would hit it, and that I believe this is something we can all agree on.

[i.huffpost.com image 260x190] 

/ knees. sharp. unhittable.


My first thought was - with a rack like that, I bet she has a caboose the size of a meteor.

//would definitely face hit that.
 
2012-10-11 12:46:50 PM
"4. How can U.S. energy stakeholders achieve cost parity across the nation's electric grid for solar power versus new fossil-fuel-powered electric plants by the year 2020?"

And when that happens, the nation's private railroad carriers will collapse, as coal transport accounts for half of their current cargo.

/not that this would be a bad thing
 
2012-10-11 12:47:04 PM

Russky: I know it's crazy that with the unemployment rate going down for the last 4 years due to people dropping out of the workforce that it would just happen to continue buck this trend. Shenanigans i say, shenanigans.


FTFY. Let's try to stick to facts.

/11% unemployment is labor participation hadn't dropped. From under 8% 4 years ago.
 
2012-10-11 12:47:06 PM

Garet Garrett: Turns out

Sorry, subby, I don't think those words mesh with the story, which acknowledges that the whole thing may just be "wishful thinking."

But I guess this wouldn't have been a feel-good story for you: With a week to think up new responses to claims that the BLS numbers can't be trusted, we've now come up with a theory that the September job numbers were wrong because we surmise that BLS numbers can't be trusted


FTFA:

On average, the two rounds of revisions that occur in the two months after the initial number lead to a change of a bit over 50,000 jobs relative to the initial estimate.

Yes, averages are a KIND of wishful thinking.
 
2012-10-11 12:47:10 PM

shifty lookin bleeder: myc: [www.slate.com image 568x346]

In the interest of bipartisanship, I would just like to say that I would hit it, and that I believe this is something we can all agree on.

I'd like to second the motion of my esteemed colleague from the intrawebs, myc. I think it's time to put this partisan rancor aside and, to paraphrase President Kennedy, ask not what your country can do for you, ask who in this country you would do.


+1
 
2012-10-11 12:47:30 PM

what_now: Really, it was a good call.


Indeed. You didn't miss much. Though, no mention of Warren's heritage or the Asbestos case... Must not be polling well with voters.
 
2012-10-11 12:47:31 PM
Doh, wrong tab!
 
2012-10-11 12:47:59 PM

Garet Garrett: Russky: I know it's crazy that with the unemployment rate going down for the last 4 years due to people dropping out of the workforce that it would just happen to continue buck this trend. Shenanigans i say, shenanigans.

FTFY. Let's try to stick to facts.

/11% unemployment is labor participation hadn't dropped. From under 8% 4 years ago.


Yes, because nobody ever retires or goes back to school or becomes disabled. Never. Once they're in the workforce, they're in FOREVER.
 
2012-10-11 12:48:28 PM
You know, for people who claim they want whats best for the American people, the republicans sure do hate seeing people find work and bettering themselves. Guess they don't really support this country after all.
 
2012-10-11 12:48:34 PM
Most of these new jobs are only temporary though, we won't need nearly so many fact-checkers after the election.
 
2012-10-11 12:48:49 PM

keylock71: what_now: Really, it was a good call.

Indeed. You didn't miss much. Though, no mention of Warren's heritage or the Asbestos case... Must not be polling well with voters.


Mostly because you don't understand either, and only believe what the right-wing media tells you about them, rather than what actually exists in reality.
 
2012-10-11 12:48:54 PM

shifty lookin bleeder: myc: [www.slate.com image 568x346]

In the interest of bipartisanship, I would just like to say that I would hit it, and that I believe this is something we can all agree on.

I'd like to second the motion of my esteemed colleague from the intrawebs, myc. I think it's time to put this partisan rancor aside and, to paraphrase President Kennedy, ask not what your country can do for you, ask who in this country you would do.


I amend my earlier defamatory statements about said Latina's caboose and would also like to bestow my support for said motion. However, I would also like to take this opportunity to correct my colleague's statement regarding President Kennedy and say "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask who would you go into for this country." Splitting hairs, I know, but these negative spaces aren't going to occupy themselves. Well, except for dildos, but again, I digress..
 
2012-10-11 12:50:29 PM

DubyaHater: The sad part is, none of this news is helping Obama right now. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the Romney campaign were calling "foul" even before the numbers were published. Everyone is so focused on that debate, Romney now stands a 1 in 3 chance of actually winning this election. The Romney signs are sprouting like weeds around SW Virginia (where Obama won in 2008). Being a Democrat around here getting harder and harder.


It's not the Conservative conspiracy theorists I'm worried about. They were never going to vote for Obama and Independents/Undecideds don't listen to obviously butthurt claims like that. I just want the big percentage figure everyone looks at to tick down--if even by .1%--from this news to completely obliterate one of Team Romney's biggest talking points.

As for Virginia, I have faith in NOVA pulling it out. And even if they don't he's still got Ohio.
 
2012-10-11 12:50:51 PM

keylock71: Jackson Herring: I was talking about this with a certain farkette last night. If Brown is going to claim that Warren is in the pocket of Big Business, maybe she should come out at the debate and say that Brown doesn't drive a truck?

"I've seen your centerfold, Sen. Brown, and it's obvious what you're compensating for with your pick-up truck..."


i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-11 12:53:21 PM

randomjsa: "Whoa, that pack of bald faced lies went over way better than expected. Pump it up a bit"


Everything said that doesn't hold 100% true to randomjsa's expectations are automatically a lie. This is the "reality" he lives in.
 
2012-10-11 12:55:27 PM

cameroncrazy1984: keylock71: what_now: Really, it was a good call.

Indeed. You didn't miss much. Though, no mention of Warren's heritage or the Asbestos case... Must not be polling well with voters.

Mostly because you don't understand either, and only believe what the right-wing media tells you about them, rather than what actually exists in reality.


?

Well, that's the first time I've ever been accused of believing what the right wing media tells me...
 
2012-10-11 12:57:03 PM

The Great EZE: DubyaHater: The sad part is, none of this news is helping Obama right now. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the Romney campaign were calling "foul" even before the numbers were published. Everyone is so focused on that debate, Romney now stands a 1 in 3 chance of actually winning this election. The Romney signs are sprouting like weeds around SW Virginia (where Obama won in 2008). Being a Democrat around here getting harder and harder.

It's not the Conservative conspiracy theorists I'm worried about. They were never going to vote for Obama and Independents/Undecideds don't listen to obviously butthurt claims like that. I just want the big percentage figure everyone looks at to tick down--if even by .1%--from this news to completely obliterate one of Team Romney's biggest talking points.

As for Virginia, I have faith in NOVA pulling it out. And even if they don't he's still got Ohio.


Dude(ette) it's the same in my part of NW Ohio too. Probably 2 Romney signs for every 1 Obama sign. It's downright depressing!
 
2012-10-11 12:58:54 PM

cameroncrazy1984: keylock71: what_now: Really, it was a good call.

Indeed. You didn't miss much. Though, no mention of Warren's heritage or the Asbestos case... Must not be polling well with voters.

Mostly because you don't understand either, and only believe what the right-wing media tells you about them, rather than what actually exists in reality.


Um. I think you have the wrong Keylock71.
 
2012-10-11 12:59:11 PM

keylock71: Well, that's the first time I've ever been accused of believing what the right wing media tells me...


You're just another deluded member of the American Sheepulace, maaaaan.
 
2012-10-11 01:02:40 PM

Garet Garrett: Turns out

Sorry, subby, I don't think those words mesh with the story, which acknowledges that the whole thing may just be "wishful thinking."

But I guess this wouldn't have been a feel-good story for you: With a week to think up new responses to claims that the BLS numbers can't be trusted, we've now come up with a theory that the September job numbers were wrong because we surmise that BLS numbers can't be trusted


Because 'making up numbers to benefit Obama' is totally the same as 'preliminary numbers based on the responses we have received so far'.

One is kooky, tin-foil, straight-jacket nonsense. The other is reality.
 
2012-10-11 01:03:29 PM

Tomahawk513: The Great EZE: DubyaHater: The sad part is, none of this news is helping Obama right now. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the Romney campaign were calling "foul" even before the numbers were published. Everyone is so focused on that debate, Romney now stands a 1 in 3 chance of actually winning this election. The Romney signs are sprouting like weeds around SW Virginia (where Obama won in 2008). Being a Democrat around here getting harder and harder.

It's not the Conservative conspiracy theorists I'm worried about. They were never going to vote for Obama and Independents/Undecideds don't listen to obviously butthurt claims like that. I just want the big percentage figure everyone looks at to tick down--if even by .1%--from this news to completely obliterate one of Team Romney's biggest talking points.

As for Virginia, I have faith in NOVA pulling it out. And even if they don't he's still got Ohio.

Dude(ette) it's the same in my part of NW Ohio too. Probably 2 Romney signs for every 1 Obama sign. It's downright depressing!


I never trusted the "yard sign" test. Let's think about the type of people who put yard signs up. They're more or less the same type of people who put bumper stickers on their cars: obsessive political diehards who made their decision months ago. Romney supporters just feel like puffing out their chests these days become of the bump. If Biden wins today's debate and Obama exacts revenge Tuesday those signs are going to vanish. But the votes coming from those houses will stay the same.
 
2012-10-11 01:04:38 PM

mayIFark: I got a slightly irrelevant question, Mitt claims there are 23 million people unemployed. And he claim he will create 12m new job. So, he is basically saying he does not care about 11m unemployed people. How come that has not become an issue?


Heh. 11m/23m = 47.8%.

lulz
 
2012-10-11 01:07:19 PM

Jackson Herring: keylock71: Jackson Herring: I was talking about this with a certain farkette last night. If Brown is going to claim that Warren is in the pocket of Big Business, maybe she should come out at the debate and say that Brown doesn't drive a truck?

"I've seen your centerfold, Sen. Brown, and it's obvious what you're compensating for with your pick-up truck..."

[i.imgur.com image 460x276]


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-11 01:08:32 PM

Jackson Herring: I was talking about this with a certain farkette last night. If Brown is going to claim that Warren is in the pocket of Big Business, maybe she should come out at the debate and say that Brown doesn't drive a truck?


I heard he drives a Mazda Miata. It's silver.
 
2012-10-11 01:09:35 PM

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 300x225]


Please explain this picture to me, I see it in all the political threads.
 
2012-10-11 01:10:29 PM

FrailChild: impaler: Jobless claims fall to lowest in four and a half years

"The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell sharply last week to the lowest level in more than four and a half years"

People know they're not working and blowing sunshine up their ass with massaged statistics is not going to change what people do in November.

[chart.apis.google.com image 594x200] 

Notice the trend since the Republican congress got elected in 2010? :) Also notice how well unemployment correlates with Republican controlled congress historically? More and more people are waking up...

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x616]


So, basically, you expect me to believe that unemployment started to rise the instant Barack Obama was elected even though he'd done nothing yet (owing to the fact he'd just farking been elected) and that it started to fall the instant the teabaggers got a foothold even though they'd done nothing yet (and still haven't)?

So, basically, you're an idiot. Or a liar. I'd hate to speculate wildly. Which one are you?
 
2012-10-11 01:11:51 PM

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: I was talking about this with a certain farkette last night. If Brown is going to claim that Warren is in the pocket of Big Business, maybe she should come out at the debate and say that Brown doesn't drive a truck?

I heard he drives a Mazda Miata. It's silver.


He strikes me as an Audi or BMW driver...
 
2012-10-11 01:11:54 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Mostly because you don't understand either, and only believe what the right-wing media tells you about them, rather than what actually exists in reality.


Actually Warren showed up to the debate in a full headdress and did an asbestos dance. Scott Brown saved everyone by loading them into his truck and flying away.
 
2012-10-11 01:13:31 PM
OK, follow me on this one. Didn't all the tea sucking Republicans in the midterm run on JOBS JOBS JOBS? Now that the job market is improving, why aren't they trying to take credit for this? If the numbers are fake as they are saying and trying to pin it on Obama, it would then also point out the utter failure of the tea party congress.

Discuss
 
2012-10-11 01:14:48 PM

unlikely: To be fair, that's how jobs reports have gone for the past two years.

NPR's reporting goes like this:

"Jobs numbers were up slightly BUT IT IS DOOM DOOM DOOOM AND YOU ARE ALL GOING TO DIE IN POVERTY. Additionally, last months figures were more optimistic than reported."


That's how they react to being the commie liberal socialist George Soros mind control station. They need to appear fair and balanced and all, or someone will want to cut their funding.
 
2012-10-11 01:16:04 PM

Smeggy Smurf: OK, so who's been hiring? Are they paying "livable wages"? These are questions that nobody can seem to answer.


Bingo. What we need is to get into office the guys that hate unions and want to eradicate the minimum wage. Then we'll all be making six digit salaries.
 
2012-10-11 01:16:38 PM
The problem with actual numbers is they don't account for "what if" numbers...


www.theamericanconservative.com

Help us fight the tyranny against tyrants...
 
2012-10-11 01:16:38 PM
Romney says "my healthcare plan covers preexisting conditions" live during a debate?

Yay!

Unemployment continues it's long downward trend?

Boo!! Lies!!!
 
2012-10-11 01:18:19 PM
It's just the economy predicting a Romney win.

/what the GOP actually believes
 
2012-10-11 01:18:22 PM

heavymetal: Well I guess the Republican narrative that the unemployment rate fell because "people gave up looking for jobs" is true. That is usually what happens when a person finds a job.


they're always in the last place you look.
 
2012-10-11 01:18:29 PM

myc: [www.slate.com image 568x346]

In the interest of bipartisanship, I would just like to say that I would hit it, and that I believe this is something we can all agree on.


Nah, republicans would rather tap the busboy
 
2012-10-11 01:19:31 PM

RevBigfoot: Now that the job market is improving, why aren't they trying to take credit for this?


Every now and again the relatively tight ship run by the republican ideologues start to break down because they get caught off guard and don't have any prearranged talking points. I'm sure they have "too slow" type talking points for unemployment drops on the order of a few tenths of a percent, but I doubt they were prepared for the sudden drop we saw recently.

It's like when all the local crap-spewing conservatrolls around here were stumbling over themselves to explain why killing bin Laden was a bad thing. It took a few days for the script-writers to get the official word out before they all coalesced around the "Obama is taking credit away from the SEAL team!" talking point.

Give them time. They'll lock on to something. Until then, enjoy watching people like tenpoundsofcheese flail helplessly without a script.
 
2012-10-11 01:20:12 PM

alltim: heavymetal: Well I guess the Republican narrative that the unemployment rate fell because "people gave up looking for jobs" is true. That is usually what happens when a person finds a job.

they're always in the last place you look.


*Snicker*

/mmmm... Candy...
 
2012-10-11 01:31:31 PM

Garet Garrett: Turns out

Sorry, subby, I don't think those words mesh with the story, which acknowledges that the whole thing may just be "wishful thinking."

But I guess this wouldn't have been a feel-good story for you: With a week to think up new responses to claims that the BLS numbers can't be trusted, we've now come up with a theory that the September job numbers were wrong because we surmise that BLS numbers can't be trusted


Look how convincing this finely crafted argument is. Wouldn't you want this man to represent you in court?
 
2012-10-11 01:37:47 PM
I never thought I'd see the day when decreasing unemployment numbers were viewed as a bad thing by tens of millions of people. Seriously. WTF?
 
2012-10-11 01:41:16 PM

meat0918: mayIFark: I got a slightly irrelevant question, Mitt claims there are 23 million people unemployed. And he claim he will create 12m new job. So, he is basically saying he does not care about 11m unemployed people. How come that has not become an issue?

What he doesn't say is he'll stop conflating U6 with U3 and magically claim that he created 12 million new jobs.

Kinda like what Fox did the other week, but in reverse.

[m.static.newsvine.com image 600x346]


m.static.newsvine.com

Wow, that's just a complete lie. And how can "Government Workers" be unemployed? That number should be 0% because they all work for the government. If they were unemployed, they don't work anywhere.

Jesus, how does fox get away with this kind of crap?
 
2012-10-11 01:43:09 PM
i.huffpost.com

"Mr. President, WHERE ARE THE JOBS??"


images.politico.com

"Here they are."



www.screeninsults.com

"__ _____ ______!"
 
2012-10-11 01:43:51 PM

plewis: Wow, that's just a complete lie. And how can "Government Workers" be unemployed? That number should be 0% because they all work for the government. If they were unemployed, they don't work anywhere.


Don't tell them that, or they'll make a graphic "proving" that President Fart is keeping all the jobs for government workers.
 
2012-10-11 01:47:45 PM
Considering some are honestly claiming that Obama secretly told his supporters to lie about working, how long before a conservative media personality suggests offsetting that by telling listeners/viewers if you are surveyed this month to tell them you were just fired and are looking for work, and if you are called for the business survey tell them you just had to terminate 98 of your 99 employees and it's just you working there now.
 
2012-10-11 01:57:18 PM

RevBigfoot: OK, follow me on this one. Didn't all the tea sucking Republicans in the midterm run on JOBS JOBS JOBS? Now that the job market is improving, why aren't they trying to take credit for this? If the numbers are fake as they are saying and trying to pin it on Obama, it would then also point out the utter failure of the tea party congress.

Discuss


This is simple- if unemployment numbers improve under Obama, it shows his leadership has been effective even though Republicans did their level best to obstruct him at every turn. Sure, they could try and take some credit for the improvement. But any trumping up of this issue gives Obama a PR boost as well and paints a different picture than the gloom and doom they've been selling. They can' t have that.

Give it time though. As Vegan Meat Popsicle already pointed out, the lock-steppers haven't received their marching orders from the spin machine yet.
 
2012-10-11 01:58:39 PM

Grungehamster: Considering some are honestly claiming that Obama secretly told his supporters to lie about working, how long before a conservative media personality suggests offsetting that by telling listeners/viewers if you are surveyed this month to tell them you were just fired and are looking for work, and if you are called for the business survey tell them you just had to terminate 98 of your 99 employees and it's just you working there now.


If this happens, our transition to the Onion reality will be complete.
 
2012-10-11 02:01:37 PM
Just in time for Romney to be sworn in and "fix" the economy. This is going to cement "dupe" as the fastest growing market.
 
2012-10-11 02:02:38 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Sure. If you believe that when an article claims something is "more likely" it is the same as them proving something, okay.

Look at the total number of people working, that is relevant metric.


STFU. Adults are talking. You have had many chances to participate in debate, but all we have ever heard from you is drivel. You are making yourself look like an idiot.
 
2012-10-11 02:06:38 PM
If they can't get the numbers manipulation accusations to stick they will ignore this and focus on the politicization of the death of a U.S. ambassador & the Benghazi bullshiat.

Republicans, bad for America, bad for the economy, bad for jobs, party before country.
 
2012-10-11 02:06:39 PM
For every Democratic matter that exists...

There is anti-matter defined by the GOP.

And since they are conservatives...they are going backwards in Time.
 
2012-10-11 02:11:26 PM

machodonkeywrestler: STFU. Adults are talking. You have had many chances to participate in debate, but all we have ever heard from you is drivel. You are making yourself look like an idiot.


The only time we have to read that twit's posts is when someone else quotes them, circumventing the ignore list.
 
2012-10-11 02:12:43 PM

President Raygun: Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 300x225]

Please explain this picture to me, I see it in all the political threads.


It's from Star Trek: Deep Space nine. The federation plants fake plans to get the Romulans to join. Thr romulan sees through the deception and that image is him saying "It's a fake".
 
2012-10-11 02:12:44 PM

Phil Moskowitz: machodonkeywrestler: STFU. Adults are talking. You have had many chances to participate in debate, but all we have ever heard from you is drivel. You are making yourself look like an idiot.

The only time we have to read that twit's posts is when someone else quotes them, circumventing the ignore list.


There is an option to ignore quoted ignored people.
 
2012-10-11 02:16:44 PM

meat0918: Grungehamster: Considering some are honestly claiming that Obama secretly told his supporters to lie about working, how long before a conservative media personality suggests offsetting that by telling listeners/viewers if you are surveyed this month to tell them you were just fired and are looking for work, and if you are called for the business survey tell them you just had to terminate 98 of your 99 employees and it's just you working there now.

If this happens, our transition to the Onion reality will be complete.


See, since all the Democrats are obviously lying when called (especially since those types are all on the welfare and haven't worked a day in his life) that means all the Republicans MUST lie to balance it out. That's the only way to get the real, unskewed unemployment rate.

You will be proud to know that when the October jobs report comes out 4 days before the election and unemployment spiked 1.5% that you foiled liberal plans to manipulate the rate for electoral gains.
 
2012-10-11 02:19:22 PM

Smeggy Smurf: OK, so who's been hiring? Are they paying "livable wages"? These are questions that nobody can seem to answer I couldn't be bothered to look up.


Answer

Oh wait, it's the BLS, they're in the tank for Obama even though they're run by a Bush appointee. Never mind.
 
2012-10-11 02:20:57 PM

RevBigfoot: OK, follow me on this one. Didn't all the tea sucking Republicans in the midterm run on JOBS JOBS JOBS? Now that the job market is improving, why aren't they trying to take credit for this? If the numbers are fake as they are saying and trying to pin it on Obama, it would then also point out the utter failure of the tea party congress.

Discuss


Here in Wisconsin the job market isn't improving as fast as the rest of the country. Last Thursday, the WI GOP was complaing the BLS numbers were wrong because they were UNDERCOUNTING the new jobs they had created. Link 

As usual, Obama is playing chess when everyone else is playing checkers.
 
2012-10-11 02:23:41 PM

commisioner: President Raygun: Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 300x225]

Please explain this picture to me, I see it in all the political threads.

It's from Star Trek: Deep Space nine. The federation plants fake plans to get the Romulans to join. Thr romulan sees through the deception and that image is him saying "It's a fake".


Even more specific and nerdy: it's Senator Vreenak
 
2012-10-11 02:28:09 PM

meat0918: mayIFark: I got a slightly irrelevant question, Mitt claims there are 23 million people unemployed. And he claim he will create 12m new job. So, he is basically saying he does not care about 11m unemployed people. How come that has not become an issue?

What he doesn't say is he'll stop conflating U6 with U3 and magically claim that he created 12 million new jobs.

Kinda like what Fox did the other week, but in reverse.

[m.static.newsvine.com image 600x346]


If you're a government worker, aren't you employed by definition?

/I know, I know, it's Fox.
 
2012-10-11 02:28:40 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Only someone who truly loves this nation could so vehemently pray for its citizens to suffer mightily in the name of "yay my team!"


Race, party, sex. actual economic status, imagined economic status are serious factors in voting decisions.

What the order is, I have no idea. But seeing as the Republican party is over 90% White...
 
2012-10-11 02:32:40 PM
Government statistics are only accurate above 8 percent. It must be some sort of sampling size problem when unemployment drops beneath 8 percent.
 
2012-10-11 02:36:52 PM

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Government statistics are only accurate above 8 percent. It must be some sort of sampling size problem when unemployment drops beneath 8 percent.


It oversamples Democrats/employed people.
 
2012-10-11 02:38:39 PM
Isn't THIS the latest news on the situation, btw?
 
2012-10-11 03:11:12 PM

Mrtraveler01: It oversamples Democrats/employed people.


No, no no. This one oversamples republicans. We all know that Democrats are dirty welfare hippies with no jobs and who pay no taxes while eating richly of microwaveable meals stored in their ivory tower refrigerators upon which hang their elitist degrees in Destroying America from Do Nothing U.

How I hate them and their contradictory facets...
 
2012-10-11 03:17:21 PM

Sm3agol85: Isn't THIS the latest news on the situation, btw?


That's why most analysts look at the 4-week moving average.

"To smooth out the week-to-week volatility, many analysts look at a four-week moving average of new jobless claims. That figure fell by 11,500 to 364,000 for the period ending Oct. 6 -- the lowest reading for the measure since May 2008."

Oops.
 
2012-10-11 03:18:34 PM

Sm3agol85: Isn't THIS the latest news on the situation, btw?


I read that earlier. I loved how the author talks about "confusion" on job numbers then correctly states that it's conspiracy theories. It's almost as if those who wish the job numbers to be terrible for political reasons cannot admit the employment conditions are improving and forced to believe that any numbers favorable to Obama can not be true.
 
2012-10-11 03:18:52 PM

theknuckler_33: Sm3agol85: Isn't THIS the latest news on the situation, btw?

That's why most analysts look at the 4-week moving average.

"To smooth out the week-to-week volatility, many analysts look at a four-week moving average of new jobless claims. That figure fell by 11,500 to 364,000 for the period ending Oct. 6 -- the lowest reading for the measure since May 2008."

Oops.


ugh... should have included the next line of the article I was quoting:

"Today's 339,000 likely exaggerates the improvement, but its story and the direction of the labor market is real," said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi in New York.

Link
 
2012-10-11 03:28:28 PM

theknuckler_33: Sm3agol85: Isn't THIS the latest news on the situation, btw?

That's why most analysts look at the 4-week moving average.

"To smooth out the week-to-week volatility, many analysts look at a four-week moving average of new jobless claims. That figure fell by 11,500 to 364,000 for the period ending Oct. 6 -- the lowest reading for the measure since May 2008."

Oops.


From his link:

"In other words, the drop of 30,000 last week had more to do with the lack of expected re-filings at the start of the fourth quarter than with any particular improvement in labor market conditions. That also means that the decline which usually follows the spike won't be as pronounced this time around, so the headline tally of jobless claims is likely to rebound next week."

Which article (his, or TFA) do I believe?
 
2012-10-11 03:29:37 PM
Like I said in the original thread, the numbers should have been higher because businesses are waiting for the election before they downsize and some are ramping up on the gamble Romney will win the election.
 
2012-10-11 03:46:11 PM

FarkGrudge: theknuckler_33: Sm3agol85: Isn't THIS the latest news on the situation, btw?

That's why most analysts look at the 4-week moving average.

"To smooth out the week-to-week volatility, many analysts look at a four-week moving average of new jobless claims. That figure fell by 11,500 to 364,000 for the period ending Oct. 6 -- the lowest reading for the measure since May 2008."

Oops.

From his link:

"In other words, the drop of 30,000 last week had more to do with the lack of expected re-filings at the start of the fourth quarter than with any particular improvement in labor market conditions. That also means that the decline which usually follows the spike won't be as pronounced this time around, so the headline tally of jobless claims is likely to rebound next week."

Which article (his, or TFA) do I believe?


Just take a look at what has been going on with the 4-week moving average.

Link.

The reality is that the 4-week moving average hasn't moved a whole lot in either direction in 2012. But that's not really saying a whole lot since numbers under 400K are generally reflective of an expanding job market. It would be nice to get that under 350 which would indicate a strong job market, but hovering in the 360-370K range for months on end certainly isn't "bad".
 
2012-10-11 04:03:47 PM
so have we added big bird,the dept of labor and the bureau of labor statistics to the institutions out to destroy the GOP?
 
2012-10-11 04:18:15 PM

mayIFark: I got a slightly irrelevant question, Mitt claims there are 23 million people unemployed. And he claim he will create 12m new job. So, he is basically saying he does not care about 11m unemployed people. How come that has not become an issue?


Dude. That's a solid point.
 
2012-10-11 04:23:45 PM

Granny_Panties: I personally don't know anybody that is out of work right now. In 2009 and 2010 I knew of a few here and there. Now it seems like everybody that ACTUALLY wants a job has one. I hear employers constantly complaining about not being able to find qualified help. For that matter I know at least 5 Baby Boomers who are purposefully in "early retirement" collecting unemployment. One guy that I worked with has been in "early retirement" for 3 years now. He's 64. I wonder how much of this crap is going on?


I feel like the economic downturn just made it socially acceptable to unemployed. Now a lot of people are happy enough to take advantage of it.

Personally, given the choice, I'd take unemployment for a year or two.....
 
2012-10-11 04:42:08 PM

theknuckler_33: FarkGrudge: theknuckler_33: Sm3agol85: Isn't THIS the latest news on the situation, btw?

That's why most analysts look at the 4-week moving average.

"To smooth out the week-to-week volatility, many analysts look at a four-week moving average of new jobless claims. That figure fell by 11,500 to 364,000 for the period ending Oct. 6 -- the lowest reading for the measure since May 2008."

Oops.

From his link:

"In other words, the drop of 30,000 last week had more to do with the lack of expected re-filings at the start of the fourth quarter than with any particular improvement in labor market conditions. That also means that the decline which usually follows the spike won't be as pronounced this time around, so the headline tally of jobless claims is likely to rebound next week."

Which article (his, or TFA) do I believe?

Just take a look at what has been going on with the 4-week moving average.

Link.

The reality is that the 4-week moving average hasn't moved a whole lot in either direction in 2012. But that's not really saying a whole lot since numbers under 400K are generally reflective of an expanding job market. It would be nice to get that under 350 which would indicate a strong job market, but hovering in the 360-370K range for months on end certainly isn't "bad".


What about this:

Link

Or,

Link

Couldn't that partially explain the dropping claims? IE, people exiting the labor force? Or, am I misunderstanding something.

/too many contradictory graphs and statistics to the casual economic observer.
//Seems too easy to find some "statistical method" of showing whatever you want to show
 
2012-10-11 04:51:25 PM
growlersoftware.com
 
2012-10-11 05:09:50 PM
While the government didn't note any unusual factors in the release itself, a Labor Department official did tell news agencies covering the release about a quirk which partly accounted for the larger-than-expected drop.

As Dow Jones reported: "A Labor Department economist said one large state didn't report additional quarterly figures as expected, accounting for a substantial part of the decrease."

The wording of that statement, along with the accompanying headlines, left the impression that one major state didn't turn in its figures.

Here's what actually happened. The state did report weekly jobless claims but did not process and report its quarterly claims number (when many people have to reapply for benefits for technical reasons as opposed to being newly laid off). As a result, there wasn't the expected spike in claims that normally happens at the start of the quarter.

It is unclear why that happened or how unusual that is. What is clear is that the expected spike in claims around the start of each quarter was smaller this time than usual. Coupled with the seasonal adjustment (that expected a bigger increase), that pushed down the headline figure.

In other words, the drop of 30,000 last week had more to do with the lack of expected re-filings at the start of the fourth quarter than with any particular improvement in labor market conditions.

That also means that the decline which usually follows the spike won't be as pronounced this time around, so the headline tally of jobless claims is likely to rebound next week.

All told, these two weeks' worth of jobless claims will end up being more noise than signal. That may frustrate those who follow the series closely for clues into the health of the U.S. labor market. Coupled with last week's payrolls report, it is also likely to fuel perception that labor market figures in general can't be trusted.

The Labor Department appears to have had little choice in this matter, however; it couldn't estimate what the one large state would or should have reported. Still, it may have been able to avoid more confusion had it more clearly articulated that in its weekly press release.

And now, there is one state's labor department with plenty of explaining to do

Link
 
2012-10-11 06:28:14 PM

Parthenogenetic: commisioner: President Raygun: Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 300x225]

Please explain this picture to me, I see it in all the political threads.

It's from Star Trek: Deep Space nine. The federation plants fake plans to get the Romulans to join. Thr romulan sees through the deception and that image is him saying "It's a fake".

Even more specific and nerdy: it's Senator Vreenak


It's still not a good analogy. For it to be comparable, a Republican politician would have to have been assassinated while carrying the forgery to present to his colleagues in order to expose it as a fake, and in the process enough of the information he was carrying would have been damaged such that the conclusion was still obvious but the errors the proved the forgery would be unreadable. As a result, the Republicans would have a smoking gun that the jobs numbers are correct (when they actually aren't), and that someone was willing to kill in order to keep them hidden.

Wait...that still doesn't work.
 
2012-10-11 07:15:56 PM
Hay, if you guys will be pals and not apply for work for the next few weeks, I'll make it up to you in the next four years. Bo.
 
2012-10-11 09:21:36 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Sure. If you believe that when an article claims something is "more likely" it is the same as them proving something, okay.

Look at the total number of people working, that is relevant metric.


Yeah, it's a damn shame, ain't it?
 
2012-10-11 10:43:54 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Sure. If you believe that when an article claims something is "more likely" it is the same as them proving something, okay.

Look at the total number of people working, that is relevant metric.


Even more hilarious from Subby's assertion... Here is the author's conclusion:

"It's possible, of course, that this is all just wishful thinking. Further revisions could show no change in the payroll number or even revise it downward. "
 
2012-10-11 10:44:47 PM

impaler: Jobless claims fall to lowest in four and a half years


Missing some data from a "large" state, namely California. Expected increase of 20-30k more jobless claims next week.
 
2012-10-12 07:51:42 AM
You guys are silly.
 
2012-10-12 11:43:43 AM
This is good news in an election month!!
 
Displayed 157 of 157 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report