unemployment figures a freaking joke...

[CosmicCowboy]

8.1%

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


We add only 96,000 jobs and yet suddenly another 368,000 "quit looking for work" so the unemployment number can drop from 8.3% to 8.1%?

What a bunch of crap.

There are 89 million people in the US that supposedly aren't in the workforce.

Labor participation dropped to 63.5%, the lowest in 30 years.

unemployment goes down?

BULLSHIT!

[Winehole23]

hilarious

[Latarian Milton]

and the figure would be even more astonishing if it also includes those who're under-employed imho. of college graduates from 06 onward, only a half are now employed at full time jobs while the others are either working part-timely or completely unemployed imho

[InRareForm]

sad times.

[boutons_deux]

The private sector continues FAILING to overcome the Banksters Great Depression.

Repug blind, rigid ideology: govt can't create jobs or wealth.

[TDMVPDPOY]

nothing hilarious about it, if ur unemployed and not registered with the SS program, htf do they know ur unemployed, then there are some with savings in the bank who cant qualify for unemployment benefits that doesnt add to the unemployment rate...

[boutons_deux]

Growth in Food Services and Drinking Places Employment as a Share of Nonfarm Employment Growth

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/graphic-economics/graphic-economics/growth-in-food-services-and-drinking-places-employment-as-a-share-of-nonfarm-employment-growth?utm_source=CEPR+feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cepr+%28CEPR%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Bad Jobs on the Rise

The decline in the economy’s ability to create good jobs is related to deterioration in the bargaining power of workers, especially those at the middle and the bottom of the pay scale. The restructuring of the U.S. labor market – including the decline in the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage, the fall in unionization, privatization, deregulation, pro-corporate trade agreements, a dysfunctional immigration system, and macroeconomic policy that has with few exceptions kept unemployment well above the full employment level – has substantially reduced the bargaining power of U.S. workers, effectively pulling the bottom out of the labor market and increasing the share of bad jobs in the economy.

In this paper, we define a bad job as one that pays less than $37,000 per year (in inflation-adjusted 2010 dollars); lacks employer-provided health insurance; and has no employer-sponsored retirement plan. By our calculations, about 24 percent of U.S. workers were in a bad job in 2010 (the most recently available data). The share of bad jobs in the economy is substantially higher than it was in 1979, when 18 percent of workers were in a bad job by the same definition. The problems we identify here are long-term and largely unrelated to the Great Recession. Most of the increase in bad jobs – to 22 percent in 2007 – occurred before the recession and subsequent weak recovery.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/bad-jobs-on-the-rise?utm_source=CEPR+feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cepr+%28CEPR%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Union busting works!

right-to-work states have lower avg wages than other states.

VRWC/ALEC/globalization devastating The Mythical American Dream

[Yonivore]

Time to make a change.


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51OFI0b4vqL.jpg

I'm Yonivore and I approved this message.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Time to make a change.


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51OFI0b4vqL.jpg

I'm Yonivore and I approved this message.

change to what?

[Yonivore]

change to what?
I think the first thing he'll change is lifting the moratorium on Gulf drilling, actually stop blocking the XL Pipeline, and abating regulations that are driving the coal industry out of business. Then, he'll call the dogs off of their fracking witch hunt.

You'll see positive employment numbers in pretty short order.

[Edward]

change to what?
Change to the awesome shape this country was in when Bush left office, tbh.

[boutons_deux]

Time to make a change.


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51OFI0b4vqL.jpg

I'm Yonivore and I approved this message.

Which of their policies assure a comeback?

And what needs to comback? the 1% and corps are doing extremely well.

what are the plans to solve the ongoing residential and commercial real estate crisis?

or is Yoni's politics nothing but Blind Faith?

[Edward]

Which of their policies assure a comeback?
Trickle down economics, tbh.

Cutting taxes on the rich has always been the antidote this country needs.

[101A]

Which of their policies assure a comeback?

None of them; but neither do Obama's


And what needs to comback? the 1% and corps are doing extremely well.

Thanks, presumably, to Obama - so why do you focus so much attention on the Republican's pandering to that group?


what are the plans to solve the ongoing residential and commercial real estate crisis?

I haven't heard any; and what Obama and co. has tried has failed.


or is Yoni's politics nothing but Blind Faith?

Not just Yoni; just about ALL who have chosen a side. If OUR guy wins things will get better; if THEIR guy wins things will be the WORST EVER; END OF AMERICA AS WE KNOWWWWW IT!!!!! (we've all seen, and many believe, this rhetoric spewing from both sides - several here certainly believe that about the "other" side; I could name names, but you all know who you are)

In the end; nothing changes; two sides of the same coin, after all. It, literally, doesn't matter which of the two politicians running for president win. Choose your side; argue vehemently for it, and against the other; YOU are part of the problem (a useful idiot), not the solution.

[boutons_deux]

Trickle down economics, tbh.

Cutting taxes on the rich has always been the antidote this country needs.

yep, since ST Ronnie cut (his) capital gains to 15% 30+ years ago, trickle down has assured that real household incomes have remained essentially flat.

dubya's tax cuts for the rich and estate taxes saw almost no job growth 2001-2008, lowes job growth since 1945.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think the first thing he'll change is lifting the moratorium on Gulf drilling, actually stop blocking the XL Pipeline, and abating regulations that are driving the coal industry out of business. Then, he'll call the dogs off of their fracking witch hunt.

You'll see positive employment numbers in pretty short order.

you do realize that the pipeline concerns were first raised the Governor of Nebraska.... right?




OMAHA, Neb. - The company that wants to build a pipeline to transport crude oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries said Wednesday it has revised its proposed new route through Nebraska to avoid environmentally sensitive areas.

The latest proposed Keystone XL pipeline route is TransCanada's second attempt to satisfy state environmental regulators. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality said in July that the initial revised route crossed land that could erode easily and passed near unconfined aquifers that supply drinking water to residents and livestock.The new TransCanada proposal tweaks that April plan, making the route veer east shortly after entering the state to avoid more of the sensitive areas in Keya Paha County, east again around the town of Clarks and west around the town of Western to avoid drinking water well fields.

Nebraska regulators said they would review the new proposal and hold a public hearing on it before submitting a recommendation to the governor, possibly by the end of the year. The governor will decide whether to approve the new route for the pipeline.
Environmental groups have long opposed the pipeline project because of concerns that it could contaminate underground and surface water supplies, increase air pollution around refineries and harm wildlife.

Bold Nebraska's Jane Kleeb said the latest new route doesn't go far enough to address her group's concerns about potential erosion of the Sandhills and groundwater contamination, so she believes state and federal officials should block the pipeline.

"The route still crosses the aquifer and it still crosses sandy soil, so all of the same concerns remain," Kleeb said.

TransCanada spokesman Grady Semmens said only 36 miles of the 275 miles of pipeline in Nebraska would cross sandy soils, and the new route entirely avoids the area Nebraska defined as the Sandhills.

The pipeline is designed to carry oil from Canada across Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. TransCanada also has proposed connecting it to the Bakken oil field in Montana and North Dakota.



by Josh Funk - Sept. 5, 2012 06:34 PM
Associated Press


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/20120905company-proposes-oil-pipeline-route-nebraska.html#ixzz25nV0VOUo
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/20120905company-proposes-oil-pipeline-route-nebraska.html#ixzz25nUWLhZd

so Romney will disregard Nebraska's concerns and build it anyway...ooook

[Edward]

The Real Estate market is turning around for the first time in years and jobs in the area are growing. Whatever Obama has done to stimulate that industry, it's a lot better than what Bush did seeing that Bush's policies led to the biggest Real Estate crash ever.

:lol "Drill Baby, Drill!" is still what Republicans think will fix this economy

[Yonivore]

you do realize that the pipeline concerns were first raised the Governor of Nebraska.... right?
You picked the least significant of the three but, it's still important.

The biggest employment gains will be realized in lifting the moratorium on Gulf Drilling and stopping the assault on coal. I'm sure Romney will work with the local States through which the pipeline travels.

Then, Romney should look at the various policies, in the current administration, he determines to be stifling economic growth and start lifting them. Instead of "unchaining Wall Street," lifting the oppressive boot of government that is causing business to park their investment dollars due to the uncertainty of what Obamacare and other costly measures, promised by Obama, in a second term.

He could work with Congress -- hopefully all Republican but, that may not be necessary, to get Obamacare repealed. If you recall, a few of the Democrats had to be bribed into voting for that piece of shit; I believe the two most prominent examples were given names like "Cornhusker Kickback" and "Louisiana Purchase." Romney could begin by rescinding any executive waivers granted to gain support and see if those companies and States will pressure Congress to reverse the madness.

I think he should then revamp the Department of Energy to stop the black hole of "investing in green energy."

Those are just a few things he could do to turn things around fairly quickly.

[Yonivore]

The Real Estate market is turning around for the first time in years and jobs in the area are growing. Whatever Obama has done to stimulate that industry, it's a lot better than what Bush did seeing that Bush's policies led to the biggest Real Estate crash ever.

:lol "Drill Baby, Drill!" is still what Republicans think will fix this economy
You need to research who was in charge of much of the mortgage industry when the shit hit the fan. You'll see names like Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, the idiot that also built the wall between the FBI and Intelligence before 9-11, Jamie Gorelick, and yes, even Barack Obama. You'll also encounter entities such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Countrywide Mortgage, ACORN. And, then, you'll see Democrat legislation such as the 1996 amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act.

You'll also see that President Bush tried, multiple times, to bring some sanity to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but, each time, he was shot down by Democrats in Congress. The videos of Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and Jamie Gorelick claiming there were no fiscal problem with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are legendary.

[Homeland Security]

Real estate crisis, blah blah blah. Culture trumps ideology. The root cause was corruption and it was bipartisan. Corrupt governments and corrupt systems mean that countries fail. When democracy becomes this broken-down and inefficient it needs to be suspended for a little while. You have to hit the reset button and wait for the computer to reboot. Under my plan, we will move the needle on culture back towards national greatness.

[MannyIsGod]

I think the first thing he'll change is lifting the moratorium on Gulf drilling, actually stop blocking the XL Pipeline, and abating regulations that are driving the coal industry out of business. Then, he'll call the dogs off of their fracking witch hunt.

You'll see positive employment numbers in pretty short order.

:lmao

[Juggity]

Drilling for oil in the Gulf is going to solve the unemployment crisis singlehandedly. Habeeb it. :lol

[RandomGuy]

8.1%

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


We add only 96,000 jobs and yet suddenly another 368,000 "quit looking for work" so the unemployment number can drop from 8.3% to 8.1%?

What a bunch of crap.

There are 89 million people in the US that supposedly aren't in the workforce.

Labor participation dropped to 63.5%, the lowest in 30 years.

unemployment goes down?

BULLSHIT!



Meh. It is simply the way unemployment is measured, and the way it has been measured for quite some time.

Why does it concern you?

[RandomGuy]

Bla bla bla Look at how bad the democrats are, and everything is their fault... bla bla bla republicans never are wrong bla bla bla my ideology is infallible bla bla bla

:sleep

[RandomGuy]

Real estate crisis, blah blah blah. Culture trumps ideology. The root cause was corruption and it was bipartisan. Corrupt governments and corrupt systems mean that countries fail. When democracy becomes this broken-down and inefficient it needs to be suspended for a little while. You have to hit the reset button and wait for the computer to reboot. Under my plan, we will move the needle on culture back towards national greatness.

Yes, the obvious answer for the problems of democracy is to get rid of democracy. :lmao

[RandomGuy]

The biggest employment gains will be realized in lifting the moratorium on Gulf Drilling and stopping the assault on coal.

Fucking dolt.

Coal is being killed by the success of gas drilling, and the plummeting price of natural gas.

Even if you got rid of all the requirements for pollution controls that makes coal power plants expensive, the fuel will still end up being the kicker, because THAT is the largest compenent of the NPV costs for new power plants.

Unless you want to pick winners and losers..


Are coal jobs worth more than natural gas jobs? Is that what you are saying?

You want government intervention in the market to save the coal jobs over the natural gas jobs?

[101A]

Bla bla bla Look at how bad the republicans are, and everything is their fault... bla bla bla democrats never are wrong bla bla bla my ideology is infallible bla bla bla

Pot meet Kettle

[RandomGuy]

Pot meet Kettle

Ouch.

I am, in constrast to hackjobs like Yoni, more than willing and able to point out the flaws in the Democratic party, and when Democrats fuck up.

If you would like, hell, I'll even find one or two things and start threads on them.

I might be a bit pissed off, and have a definite viewpoint, but please don't insult me like that.

Yonivore is 100% hack all the time, every time, on every issue. Predictable and dishonest and misleading if he thinks he can make his case by doing so and get away with it.

Do you really think I have so little disregard for the truth as to be as bad as Yonivore?

[RandomGuy]

None of them; but neither do Obama's

Thanks, presumably, to Obama - so why do you focus so much attention on the Republican's pandering to that group?

I haven't heard any; and what Obama and co. has tried has failed.

Not just Yoni; just about ALL who have chosen a side. If OUR guy wins things will get better; if THEIR guy wins things will be the WORST EVER; END OF AMERICA AS WE KNOWWWWW IT!!!!! (we've all seen, and many believe, this rhetoric spewing from both sides - several here certainly believe that about the "other" side; I could name names, but you all know who you are)

In the end; nothing changes; two sides of the same coin, after all. It, literally, doesn't matter which of the two politicians running for president win. Choose your side; argue vehemently for it, and against the other; YOU are part of the problem (a useful idiot), not the solution.

Meh, it won't be the end of the world if Romney gets elected.

We will muddle through regardless of how incompetant his administration will be, just as we muddled through Obama's and Bush's.

There have been a couple of threads here about just how undeducated about economics both ends of the spectrum can be when you get some hot button issue.

I think the real delusion is the mindless cynicism that tries to equate both sides as equal somehow.

Republicans are driving out moderates, and actively punishing them.

Democrats aren't, that I am yet aware of.

Fell free to provide examples of the Democrats driving as hard to the left as the Republicans are driving to the right, if you want to support your "no difference" thesis.

[Homeland Security]

I suppose that nominating John McCain and Mitt Romney in consecutive Presidential elections could be seen as "driving to the right" from the perspective of a treasonous fucking communist.

[SnakeBoy]

Republicans are driving out moderates, and actively punishing them.

Democrats aren't, that I am yet aware of.


Did you miss the first 2 years of the Obama administration? Did you miss the results of the 2010 election?

[RandomGuy]

I suppose that nominating John McCain and Mitt Romney in consecutive Presidential elections could be seen as "driving to the right" from the perspective of a treasonous fucking communist.

I would not consider their nominations to be "driving to the right".

Swing and miss, jackboot. Truncheon 101 is thataway, your backswing needs work....>>>>>>>

I would consider the unseating of a lot of establishment Republicans by tea party zealots to be driving to the right, as well as some of the more strident bullshit that seems to be seeing the light of day.

[RandomGuy]

Did you miss the first 2 years of the Obama administration? Did you miss the results of the 2010 election?

No, I did not.

What specifically are you referring to?

[mavs>spurs]

It's okay guys because Obama is president.

[SnakeBoy]

No, I did not.

What specifically are you referring to?

Your claim that dems aren't driving out moderates.

[elbamba]

I would not consider their nominations to be "driving to the right".

Swing and miss, jackboot. Truncheon 101 is thataway, your backswing needs work....>>>>>>>

I would consider the unseating of a lot of establishment Republicans by tea party zealots to be driving to the right, as well as some of the more strident bullshit that seems to be seeing the light of day.

Removing establishment politicians can be a good thing. We have had about 15-20 years of suck. Maybe it is time for new blood from both parties?

I get the whole tea party politicians are crazy. But for the most part, the actual crazy ones don't seem to win. For example, Ted Cruz was the "Tea Party" candidate. If you look at Dewherst and Cruz with any honesty at all, they are the identical candidate. That is why people didn't rush out and vote for Dewherst. Its voting for the same person.

The real crazy people like Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin don't win.

[DMX7]

Time to make a change.


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51OFI0b4vqL.jpg

I'm Yonivore and I approved this message.

More like America's "GO BACK TO 2008 TEAM"...

[Nbadan]

I suppose that nominating John McCain and Mitt Romney in consecutive Presidential elections could be seen as "driving to the right" from the perspective of a treasonous fucking communist.

:lol

[Nbadan]

hooohummm...

Since President Obama's economic policies ended the George W. Bush gifted Great Recession, halted staggering monthly job losses that approached 800,000, and returned the nation to positive job growth in record time he has enjoyed a job creation rate that exceeds the 1st term job creation record of ANY Republican President in history.

Below is a table which shows job creation by President for ALL terms served. Reagan's record in his first term in office was 109,000 per month. Reagan inherited stellar job creation from President Carter and cut it in nearly in half. President Obama inherited the deepest drop in job loss since the Great Depression and has since September of 2010 outperformed every Republican on record.

When examining the record of job creation we must look where President Obama started out to fully understand how far he has taken us as a nation down the road to recovery.

Democratic Record:
Truman +86,500
Kennedy +100,000
Johnson +191,666
Carter +216,666
Clinton +241,666 ----------------------
+174,192 Jobs gained per month

Republican Record:
Eisenhower +36,458
Nixon +117,708
Reagan +167,708
G. H. Bush +52,000
G. W. Bush +19,895
-----------------
+78,754 Jobs gained per month



read full article: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/2012/07/president-obama-record-on-job-creation.html

[Nbadan]

nothing to see here folks, move along...

States of Depression


One way to dramatize just how severe our de facto austerity has been is to compare government employment and spending during the Obama-era economic expansion, which began in June 2009, with their tracks during the Reagan-era expansion, which began in November 1982.

Start with government employment (which is mainly at the state and local level, with about half the jobs in education). By this stage in the Reagan recovery, government employment had risen by 3.1 percent; this time around, it’s down by 2.7 percent.

Next, look at government purchases of goods and services (as distinct from transfers to individuals, like unemployment benefits). Adjusted for inflation, by this stage of the Reagan recovery, such purchases had risen by 11.6 percent; this time, they’re down by 2.6 percent.

And the gap persists even when you do include transfers, some of which have stayed high precisely because unemployment is still so high. Adjusted for inflation, Reagan-era spending rose 10.2 percent in the first 10 quarters of recovery, Obama-era spending only 2.6 percent.

Why did government spending rise so much under Reagan, with his small-government rhetoric, while shrinking under the president so many Republicans insist is a secret socialist? In Reagan’s case, it’s partly about the arms race, but mainly about state and local governments doing what they are supposed to do: educate a growing population of children, invest in infrastructure for a growing economy.

Under President Obama, however, the dire fiscal condition of state and local governments — the result of a sustained slump, which in turn was caused largely by that private debt explosion before 2008 — has led to forced spending cuts. The fiscal straits of lower-level governments could and should have been alleviated by aid from Washington, which remains able to borrow at incredibly low interest rates. But this aid was never provided on a remotely adequate scale.

This policy malpractice is doing double damage to America. On one side, it’s helping lose the future — because that’s what happens when you neglect education and public investment. At the same time, it’s hurting us right now, by helping keep growth low and unemployment high.

We’re talking big numbers here. If government employment under Mr. Obama had grown at Reagan-era rates, 1.3 million more Americans would be working as schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, etc., than are currently employed in such jobs.

And once you take the effects of public spending on private employment into account, a rough estimate is that the unemployment rate would be 1.5 percentage points lower than it is, or below 7 percent — significantly better than the Reagan economy at this stage.

One implication of this comparison is that conservatives who love to compare Reagan’s record with Mr. Obama’s should think twice. Aside from the fact that recoveries from financial crises are almost always slower than ordinary recoveries, in reality Reagan was much more Keynesian than Mr. Obama, faced with an obstructionist G.O.P., has ever managed to be.

More important, however, there is now an easy answer to anyone asking how we can accelerate our economic recovery. By all means, let’s talk about visionary ideas; but we can take a big step toward full employment just by using the federal government’s low borrowing costs to help state and local governments rehire the schoolteachers and police officers they laid off, while restarting the road repair and improvement projects they canceled or put on hold.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html?_r=1

rhetoric...

[Nbadan]

1). Public sector (government) employment increased under Bush by just over 4%, and has declined under President Obama by approx. 3%.

2). Private sector employment under Bush declined by approx. 1% over 4 years. Yet in just 2.5 years since the Great Recession bottomed out after President Obama's economic policies took hold have increased by approx. 4%.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6It2jD8hJ74/T8zXXXnzeZI/AAAAAAAAALI/fM123aA6ekg/s640/jobsbushversusObama.jpg


This graph again documents the typical historical record of comparing Republican Economic results against Democratic economic results. Republicans overspend and under perform. As I've stated repeatedly before only two things grow when Republican economic principles are in place, namely unemployment and the national debt. A snapshot look at this comparison shows:

Willard Romney has stated he wants to re-implement the Bush economic policies, the same policies that greased the skids for the 2nd greatest economic decline in American history. Romney wants bring his MBA education and experience to shape the American economy. We have had two other Presidents with such experience and education, Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush. How'd that work out?

http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job-growth.html

[Jacob1983]

Republicans want to run the economy into the ground with spreading Democracy overseas and building 1 billion dollar embassies while Democrats want to run the economy into the ground with giving women free abortions, free babies, free birth control, free tampons, and giving any American that is a part of a minority group everything from cradle to grave. That pretty much sums it up.

[boutons_deux]

the key number in public sector losses is 300K teachers fired, mostly fired in Repug states, which is nothing but All Politics, All The Time (education be damned).

[boutons_deux]

Republicans want to run the economy into the ground with spreading Democracy overseas and building 1 billion dollar embassies while Democrats want to run the economy into the ground with giving women free abortions, free babies, free birth control, free tampons, and giving any American that is a part of a minority group everything from cradle to grave. That pretty much sums it up.

Pretty simple, but wrong.

Repugs want to protect and enrich the 1% and UCA.

I'm not sure what the Dems want to do, but whatever, the Repugs will stop them.

[Latarian Milton]

The Real Estate market is turning around for the first time in years and jobs in the area are growing. Whatever Obama has done to stimulate that industry, it's a lot better than what Bush did seeing that Bush's policies led to the biggest Real Estate crash ever.

:lol "Drill Baby, Drill!" is still what Republicans think will fix this economy

shit just bounces back after hitting the ground and it has nothing to do with whatever obama did imho. the real estate bubble had existed since long before bush took office and it just happened to blow out under bush's administration, which had just as little to do with bush's fault as the 9/11 attack tbh

[boutons_deux]

"the real estate bubble had existed since long before bush took office"

LONG before?

You Lie, and nearly all of the bubbles, housing and credit, happened on Repug watch.

Dubya even shut down Spitzer and 19 states that tried to get predatory lending, a huge factor in the buble, stopped.

http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/

[velik_m]

I still don't get why everyone is so obsessed with "jobs". It's a wrong metric anyway.

[boutons_deux]

Half Of America’s Unemployed Workers Are Collecting No Unemployment Benefits


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/longtermunemployment0912.png

While it is natural to assume that most unemployed workers are eligible for UI benefits, at most, only two‐thirds of all unemployed workers received state or federal UI benefits at any time during the economic downturn. Today, less than half the nation’s 12.8 million unemployed workers receive some form of UI. Approximately 3.2 million collect state UI benefits, covering the first 26 weeks of unemployment, while an additional 2.3 million job seekers receive federal UI under the EUC08 program.

This is occurring because federal benefits phase out as states’ jobless numbers decline. Because states are seeing their jobs numbers improve — to levels that are by no means adequate — federal benefits are phasing out. That leaves workers with only 26 weeks of state benefits to use, which leaves them 13 weeks shy of the average duration of unemployment.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/07/814811/unemployment-benefits-half-no/

[boutons_deux]

Facts show Democrats are job creators

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76338.html

Private Jobs Increase More With Democrats in White House

http://www.bloomberg.com/image/i6Z8zEz5YBL0.jpg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/private-jobs-increase-more-with-democrats-in-white-house.html

[DMC]

I'm doing pretty good though.

[Latarian Milton]

your fooled if you give him credit for the job creation measured by only quantity rather than quality. the fact is, most jobs created during obama's administration are shitty ones that most people don't want to take, but sometimes have to take because of living pressure. while the number of jobs overall has been increasing, the decent jobs are gradually disappearing and the middle class is shrinking as a result. it's like converting a $100 cash into a handful of cashes of smaller values, don't get yourselves deluded into thinking obama has done something to "create" any jobs tbh

[CosmicCowboy]

I try to tip 20% on all those jobs Obama has created unless they give really shitty service.

[Clipper Nation]

I would consider the unseating of a lot of establishment Republicans by tea party zealots to be driving to the right
Establishment Republicans being replaced by other establishment Republicans who pretend they're outsiders hardly represents a shift to the right, tbh....

[boutons_deux]

Blaming Obama for corporations killing, exporting well-paid jobs? GMAFB

The shittier the jobs and salaries, the more $Bs for mgmt and investors.

The more the temp/contract/outsourced jobs, less "wasted" on salaries, benefits, the more $Bs for mgmt and investors.

Wanna get a huge bonus? Layoff Ks or 10Ks of people.

[Wild Cobra]

I try to tip 20% on all those jobs Obama has created unless they give really shitty service.
I didn't know you were suppose ti tip government employees, and why should I? They always give bad service.

[boutons_deux]

the obvious Repug strategy has been/is to maintain/worsen the economy and jobs, the all round pain (for the 99%), as bad a possible for Nov 2012

Obstruct and Exploit

Does anyone remember the American Jobs Act? A year ago President Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases, aimed in particular at sustaining state and local government employment. Independent analysts reacted favorably. For example, the consulting firm Macroeconomic Advisers estimated that the act would add 1.3 million jobs by the end of 2012.

There were good reasons for these positive assessments. Although you'd never know it from political debate, worldwide experience since the financial crisis struck in 2008 has overwhelmingly confirmed the proposition that fiscal policy "works," that temporary increases in spending boost employment in a depressed economy (and that spending cuts increase unemployment). The Jobs Act would have been just what the doctor ordered.

But the bill went nowhere, of course, blocked by Republicans in Congress. And now, having prevented Mr. Obama from implementing any of his policies, those same Republicans are pointing to disappointing job numbers and declaring that the president's policies have failed.

Think of it as a two-part strategy.

First, obstruct any and all efforts to strengthen the economy,

then exploit the economy's weakness for political gain.

If this strategy sounds cynical, that's because it is. Yet it's the G.O.P.'s best chance for victory in November.

But are Republicans really playing that cynical a game?

You could argue that we're having a genuine debate about economic policy, in which Republicans sincerely believe that the things Mr. Obama proposes would actually hurt, not help, job creation. However, even if that were true, the fact is that the economy we have right now doesn't reflect the policies the president wanted.

Anyway, do Republicans really believe that government spending is bad for the economy? No.

Right now Mitt Romney has an advertising blitz under way in which he attacks Mr. Obama for possible cuts in defense spending - cuts, by the way, that were mandated by an agreement forced on the president by House Republicans last year. And why is Mr. Romney denouncing these cuts? Because, he says, they would cost jobs!

This is classic "weaponized Keynesianism" - the claim that government spending can't create jobs unless the money goes to defense contractors, in which case it's the lifeblood of the economy. And no, it doesn't make any sense.

What about the argument, which I hear all the time, that Mr. Obama should have fixed the economy long ago? The claim goes like this: during his first two years in office Mr. Obama had a majority in Congress that would have let him do anything he wanted, so he's had his chance.

The short answer is, you've got to be kidding.

As anyone who was paying attention knows, the period during which Democrats controlled both houses of Congress was marked by unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate. The filibuster, formerly a tactic reserved for rare occasions, became standard operating procedure; in practice, it became impossible to pass anything without 60 votes. And Democrats had those 60 votes for only a few months. Should they have tried to push through a major new economic program during that narrow window? In retrospect, yes - but that doesn't change the reality that for most of Mr. Obama's time in office U.S. fiscal policy has been defined not by the president's plans but by Republican stonewalling.

The most important consequence of that stonewalling, I'd argue, has been the failure to extend much-needed aid to state and local governments. Lacking that aid, these governments have been forced to lay off hundreds of thousands of schoolteachers and other workers, and those layoffs are a major reason the job numbers have been disappointing. Since bottoming out a year after Mr. Obama took office, private-sector employment has risen by 4.6 million; but government employment, which normally rises more or less in line with population growth, has instead fallen by 571,000.

Put it this way: When Republicans took control of the House, they declared that their economic philosophy was "cut and grow" - cut government, and the economy will prosper. And thanks to their scorched-earth tactics, we've actually had the cuts they wanted. But the promised growth has failed to materialize - and they want to make that failure Mr. Obama's fault.

Now, all of this puts the White House in a difficult bind. Making a big deal of Republican obstructionism could all too easily come across as whining. Yet this obstructionism is real, and arguably is the biggest single reason for our ongoing economic weakness.

And what happens if the strategy of obstruct-and-exploit succeeds? Is this the shape of politics to come? If so, America will have gone a long way toward becoming an ungovernable banana republic.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=970494&f=28&sub=Columnist

[RandomGuy]

Removing establishment politicians can be a good thing. We have had about 15-20 years of suck. Maybe it is time for new blood from both parties?

I get the whole tea party politicians are crazy. But for the most part, the actual crazy ones don't seem to win. For example, Ted Cruz was the "Tea Party" candidate. If you look at Dewherst and Cruz with any honesty at all, they are the identical candidate. That is why people didn't rush out and vote for Dewherst. Its voting for the same person.

The real crazy people like Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin don't win.

Palin won Governor.

Bachmann... wins reelction to Congress consistantly.

[TeyshaBlue]

I would not consider their nominations to be "driving to the right".

Swing and miss, jackboot. Truncheon 101 is thataway, your backswing needs work....>>>>>>>

I would consider the unseating of a lot of establishment Republicans by tea party zealots to be driving to the right, as well as some of the more strident bullshit that seems to be seeing the light of day.

You just dont encounter the word "Truncheon" every day.:toast:lol

[Th'Pusher]

Economy adds 114k jobs in September and unemployment rate drops to 7.8%. Romney can't use the old unemployment has stayed above 8% for x months anymore. CC is likely to stroke out.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not stroking out, just have zero faith in their numbers. You want to celebrate a mythical 7.8% unemployment, be my guest.

[CosmicCowboy]

189,000 jobs are added in August and the unemployment is 8.1%

Only 166,000 jobs added in September and the unemployment drops to 7.8%?

:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

Published on Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 8:15 AM ET
September 2012 ADP National Employment Report
®
Employment in the U.S. nonfarm private business sector increased by 162,000 from August to
September, on a seasonally adjusted basis. The estimated gains in previous months were revised
lower: The July increase was reduced by 17,000 to an increase of 156,000, while the August
increase was reduced by 12,000 to an increase of 189,000.
Employment in the private, service-providing sector expanded 144,000 in September, down from
175,000 in August. Employment in the private, goods-producing sector added 18,000 jobs in
September. Manufacturing employment rose 4,000, while construction employment rose 10,000,
the strongest since March when mild winter weather was boosting construction activity. The
financial services sector added 7,000 jobs in September, marking the fourteenth consecutive
monthly gain.
Employment on large payrolls—those with 500 or more workers—increased 17,000 and
employment on medium payrolls—those with 50 to 499 workers—rose 64,000 in September.
Employment on small payrolls—those with up to 49 workers—rose 81,000 that same period. Of
the 64,000 jobs created on medium-sized payrolls, 10,000 jobs were created by the goodsproducing sector and 54,000 jobs were created by the service-providing sector.
For more information, please visit the methodology section of the ADP National Employment
Report website at http://ADPemploymentreport.com/methodology.aspx.

[CosmicCowboy]

According to the labor department report, U6 is unchanged at 14.7%.

[Th'Pusher]

Not stroking out, just have zero faith in their numbers. You want to celebrate a mythical 7.8% unemployment, be my guest.

No celebration here. I have little faith in the numbers as well. I just find it amusing that Romney lost his 8% talking point. Now he has to talk about the shrinking workforce, which is a much more difficult concept for the uneducated masses that may actually vote for this moron to grasp :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao


Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric caused a stir after the numbers were released, tweeting "Unbelievable jobs numbers...these Chicago guys will do anything...can't debate so change numbers."

[Th'Pusher]

So do you think they actually modified the way they do the numbers this month in an effort to manipulate the electorate? Is this your conspiracy theory

[boutons_deux]

Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric

... famous for having converting GE into a financial machine, gutting much of its technical prowess and killing 1000s of GE jobs.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It's funny how Republicans cheer for the economy to do poorly under Democratic leadership and get pissed whenever an unemployment number that's been calculated the same way for decades goes down. Would you have preferred it went up? Stayed the same?

Some of it is subconscious and some of it is deliberate, but it's clear Republicans in this country care more about Obama failing than America thriving.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's funny how Republicans cheer for the economy to do poorly under Democratic leadership and get pissed whenever an unemployment number that's been calculated the same way for decades goes down. Would you have preferred it went up? Stayed the same?

Some of it is subconscious and some of it is deliberate, but it's clear Republicans in this country care more about Obama failing than America thriving.

What kind of bullshit accusation is that? Nobody is cheering the awful job numbers. It's a fucking national tragedy that 15% of the people in the US are unemployed or underemployed.

[DarrinS]

Economy adds 114k jobs in September and unemployment rate drops to 7.8%. Romney can't use the old unemployment has stayed above 8% for x months anymore. CC is likely to stroke out.


Boy, that was convenient.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not stroking out, just have zero faith in their numbers. You want to celebrate a mythical 7.8% unemployment, be my guest.

That's great if completely unsurprising. At the same time, how do you reconcile that with the rhetoric that the GOP, it's flagship station at FOX, and their presidential candidate in particular decrying the economy on the basis of said figures. You also completely unsurprisingly give them a pass by ignoring that but I was wondering specifically what your stance was. Do you:

A) Understand feel that they are full of shit and willingly unrepresentative.
B) Feel they have a good point even it completely contradicts your statement of above.

[CosmicCowboy]

So do you think they actually modified the way they do the numbers this month in an effort to manipulate the electorate? Is this your conspiracy theory



The report presented a slew of contradictory data points, with the total employment level soaring despite the low net number.

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

But the government said the total number of jobs employed surged by 873,000, the highest one-month jump in 29 years. The total of unemployed people tumbled by 456,000.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49299718

[George Gervin's Afro]

Underemployed? This word has made a comeback during the Obama years..lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Boy, that was convenient.

So are you insinuating that Ms. Solis misrepresented data?

[CosmicCowboy]

How can their report say the economy added 114,000 jobs from August to September, yet also say that from August to September 873,000 more people had jobs?

[TeyshaBlue]

Underemployed? This word has made a comeback during the Obama years..lol

It's the defacto employment descriptor, tbh.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's the defacto employment descriptor, tbh.

But, I suppose alot hinges on the definition of underemployed. That seems to be fairly plastic term.

[DarrinS]

So are you insinuating that Ms. Solis misrepresented data?

I think the numbers are suspect.


yL1TeI2x2H0

[CosmicCowboy]

It's the defacto employment descriptor, tbh.

No shit. Retail and food service hires two people and gives them each 30 hours a week and no benefits instead of the "old" way of hiring one person for 40 hours a week with benefits.

[boutons_deux]

Underemployed? This word has made a comeback during the Obama years..lol

The Obama years are really the Banksters' Great (Jobs) Depression years.

[DarrinS]

Zero hedge calling it "Complete preelection 'massaging' farce"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-05/nfp-prints-114k-top-expectations-115k-unemployment-rate-tumbles-78-expectations-82

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think the numbers are suspect.


yL1TeI2x2H0

The data points come from specific sources. They are not subjective ie they count actual data like unemployment filing and tax withholdings.


Who is counted as employed?

Employed persons consist of:

All persons who did any work for pay or profit during the survey reference week.
All persons who did at least 15 hours of unpaid work in a family-owned enterprise operated by someone in their household.
All persons who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs, whether they were paid or not.

Not all of the wide range of job situations in the American economy fit neatly into a given category. For example, people are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey reference week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time, year-round employment. Persons also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week because they were:

On vacation
Ill
Experiencing child-care problems
Taking care of some other family or personal obligation
On maternity or paternity leave
Involved in an industrial dispute
Prevented from working by bad weather

Who is counted as unemployed?

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

Workers expecting to be recalled from layoff are counted as unemployed, whether or not they have engaged in a specific jobseeking activity. In all other cases, the individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks preceding the interview and be available for work (except for temporary illness).

So what figures do you think that they are lying about?

Do you feel that they are falsifying survey data or government figures?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Zero hedge calling it "Complete preelection 'massaging' farce"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-05/nfp-prints-114k-top-expectations-115k-unemployment-rate-tumbles-78-expectations-82

Care to post something that's not a blog with contributors named testosteronepit and tylerdurden?

[boutons_deux]

What kind of bullshit accusation is that? Nobody is cheering the awful job numbers. It's a fucking national tragedy that 15% of the people in the US are unemployed or underemployed.

That's the way the corporations want it. with 37 straight quarters of international trade deficits and govt policies that encourage US companies to offshore (aka "globalize") jobs and bring back the products tarriff free can be corrected, but UCA will block any such corrections.

Most of recently created jobs are in the sub $20/hour range, some near $10/hour, NOT quality middle class jobs. They same was true with 10Ms jobs created in the 1990s.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How can their report say the economy added 114,000 jobs from August to September, yet also say that from August to September 873,000 more people had jobs?


Technical information: Revisions to CES data for late sample reports, annual benchmarking, and other factors
Background

The Current Employment Statistics (CES) program (also known as the payroll survey or the establishment survey) is designed to measure trends in employment, hours, and earnings by industry. Each month BLS surveys approximately 141,000 businesses and government agencies representing approximately 486,000 worksites throughout the United States. The monthly Employment Situation news release provides national CES data on employment, hours, and earnings, as well as labor force and unemployment estimates from the Current Population Survey (CPS), also known as the household survey.

The Employment Situation is typically released on the first Friday of the month following the reference month. For example, the February 3, 2012 Employment Situation published CES first preliminary employment estimates for January 2012. CES estimates represent information reported by survey respondents for their pay periods that include the 12th of the month.

Not all sampled firms are able to report their data in time to be used in the first preliminary estimates. Therefore, BLS continues to collect sample responses after the release of first preliminary estimates for incorporation into second preliminary and final sample-based estimates. Second preliminary estimates for a reference month are published the month following the initial release, and final sample-based estimates are published two months after the initial release.

Sample-based estimates remain final until employment levels are reset to universe employment counts, or benchmarks, for March of each year; the benchmarks are primarily derived from Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax records. The annual benchmarking process results in revised data back to the last annual benchmark for not seasonally adjusted series and back five years for seasonally adjusted series.

CES data are principal economic indicators and serve as input to many other economic series. Each time the CES employment estimates are revised, additional information that was not previously available is incorporated into the estimates. Below are discussions of how CES data revise:

Monthly, to include late sample reports;
Annually, due to benchmarking; and
Irregularly, to avoid discontinuities while incorporating methodological changes.

Monthly Revisions to Include Late Sample Reports

CES data users typically are most concerned with revisions to over-the-month changes. This section profiles these monthly revisions of CES seasonally adjusted over-the-month changes and the sample collection rates that underlie the revisions.

Revisions to CES over-the-month changes are calculated by comparing each month's second preliminary over-the-month change to the first preliminary over-the-month change, the final sample-based over-the month change with the second preliminary over-the-month change, and the final sample-based over-the-month change to the first preliminary over-the-month change.

See www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm for a table of revisions to seasonally adjusted Total nonfarm over-the-month changes from January 1979 forward. The monthly employment change figures shown in the table do not reflect subsequent changes due to the introduction of benchmark revisions, seasonal adjustment, or other updates.

Mean revisions and mean absolute revisions for each calendar year are included in the table. Mean absolute revisions indicate the overall magnitude of change to the estimates, while the mean revisions are a measure of whether there is a bias in direction of the revisions. The closer the mean revision is to zero, the less indication that revisions are predominantly either upward or downward. For example, if in a given year there were six upward revisions of 50,000 and six downward revisions of 50,000, the mean revision would be zero; however, the mean absolute revision would be 50,000.

BLS begins collecting sample reports for a reference month as soon as the reference period, the establishment's pay period that includes the 12th of the month, is complete. Collection time available for first preliminary estimates ranges from 9 to 15 days, depending on the scheduled date for the Employment Situation news release. The Employment Situation is scheduled for the third Friday following the week including the 12th of the prior month, with an exception for January. (For January, the news release is delayed a week if the third Friday following the week of the 12th occurs on January 1, 2, or 3.)

Given this short collection cycle for the first preliminary estimates, many establishments are not able to provide their payroll information in time to be included in these estimates. Therefore, CES sample responses for the reference month continue to be collected for two more months and are incorporated into the second preliminary and final sample-based estimates published in subsequent months. Additional sample receipts are the primary source of the monthly CES employment revisions.

Prior to 1991, most of the CES sample was collected by mail in a decentralized environment by each State Workforce Agency. BLS has gradually centralized collection and adopted automated sample collection methods with the result that collection rates have gradually risen over time. BLS uses a variety of collection techniques, tailored to individual firm preferences to encourage participation in this voluntary survey. Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) is used for initial enrollment and collection of sample. Sample units are often transferred later to an automated method of self-reporting, such as through Fax, Internet, or Touchtone Data Entry (TDE). Many large, multi-establishment firms report through Electronic Data Interchange (EDI); the firms provide electronic files to BLS that include all of their worksites. A small percentage of sample units still report via mail.

Collection rates are defined as the percent of reports received for a monthly estimate compared to the total number of actively-reporting sample units on the sample registry.

CES collection rates back to 1981 can be found on www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesregrec.htm.

Much of the month-to-month variation in the first preliminary collection rates is a function of the number of collection days in the individual months. The overall upward trend over time is attributable to replacing decentralized mail collection with automated techniques.
Benchmark Revisions

Annual CES benchmark revisions are published along with January first preliminary estimates in February of each year. Benchmark revisions reflect a re-anchoring of CES sample-based estimates to incorporate near universe counts of employment. These comprehensive counts of employment, or benchmarks, are derived primarily from employment counts reported on UI tax reports that nearly all employers are required to file with State Workforce Agencies.

http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesregrevtec.htm

That was so difficult to find.

[boutons_deux]

Big Picture Time!


The Betrayal of America's Middle Class Was a Choice, Not an Accident


http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11893-the-betrayal-of-americas-middle-class-was-a-choice-not-an-accident-an-interview-with-authors-donald-barlett-and-james-steele

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

[Winehole23]

http://www.hamiltonproject.org/jobs_gap/

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.hamiltonproject.org/jobs_gap/

That's a cool link, WH.:toast

[TDMVPDPOY]

counting casual and part time jobs as full time jobs...lol watta joke

[101A]

Kind of feel sorry for Obama. IF these numbers haven't been manipulated in some way - they APPEAR, just based on the convenience of them, that they HAVE been manipulated in some way. THAT seems to be the story; "These don't add up"..."How convenient"....etc.......

Makes them look desperate.

Now, I'm gonna call my (must be previously) unemployed friends. Since several of them must have jobs; THEY can buy tonight for a change.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

counting casual and part time jobs as full time jobs...lol watta joke

Is someone with a part time job employed or unemployed?

[vy65]

That's a cool link, WH.:toast

Cool or really depressing :cry ?

[boutons_deux]

in the simplistic unemployment rate, and new jobs number, there's almost never any mention of wage level for new jobs

The low-wage jobs explosion


http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/31/news/economy/low-wage-jobs/index.html

During recovery, most new jobs offer low wages
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505143_162-57504243/during-recovery-most-new-jobs-offer-low-wages/

[ElNono]

189,000 jobs are added in August and the unemployment is 8.1%

Only 166,000 jobs added in September and the unemployment drops to 7.8%?

:lmao

Isn't it always like that? I thought that was why the number gets adjusted seasonally.

[Th'Pusher]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49299718

I'm well aware of why the number shrunk. That was my point. Romney now has to make the more difficult argument of explaining the shrinking labor force and he can no longer use the unemployment rate above 8% meme. Seems like you get that. Now it is just DarrinS and Jack Welch that seem to think Obama is directly manipulating the numbers in an effort to win at all costs.

[LnGrrrR]

Is there some sort of certificate that could prove these numbers? I heard conservatives were big into certificates.

[CosmicCowboy]

The Labor Department, based on a broad survey of employers, said 114,000 jobs were added in September.
But the unemployment rate itself is based on a separate "household survey," which showed a whopping 873,000 new jobs in September.
"This must be an anomaly," former Congressional Budget Office director Doug Holtz-Eakin said in a snap analysis of the numbers. "It is out of line with any of the other data.."
Holtz-Eakin noted the household survey is smaller, suggesting it is not as reliable. He called estimate of 873,000 new jobs "implausible."


Liberal economist Dean Baker, with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, called the September rate drop "almost certainly a statistical fluke."

[RandomGuy]

That's a cool link, WH.:toast


Here is an interesting search though that offers some more detailed insights:
http://www.npr.org/templates/archives/archive.php?thingId=127414874

Very interesting bit by a rather sophisticated simulation from Moody's analytics:
Even If You're All-Powerful, It's Hard To Fix The Economy
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/14/161153421/even-if-youre-all-powerful-its-hard-to-fix-the-economy#more


Zandi is the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, and he built his model to predict what's going to happen in the real world. When he plugs what he thinks is going to happen in the real world, his model spits out a pretty grim result: Four years from now, the unemployment rate will be 6.6 percent. That's lower than today, but still much higher than the 5 percent rate that was typical before the recession.

...

"What's happening is the economy is reaching its new limits," Zandi says.

This is something I hadn't really appreciated before. When you go through a really big, catastrophic recession, it's not always possible to fix things.

Millions of people lost their jobs in the recession. At the same time new high school and college grads started looking for jobs.

The economy just can't grow fast enough to absorb the backlog. Zandi says we'll have an extra million people looking for jobs, and unable to find them.

"We dug ourselves a huge hole," Zandi says, "Its gonna take a generation to get completely out of it."

Doesn't matter which guy gets the President nod.

If you are concerned about "jobs", you should simply flip a coin and vote by that outcome.

Luckily there are a lot other things that presidents can do that matter. Supreme court justices, for example.

[boutons_deux]

"The economy just can't grow fast enough to absorb the backlog"

backlog? how about just adding enough jobs to keep up with population growth?

If Gecko/Ryan get in + a Repug Congress, their promised austerity will make the jobs and depression worse.

[djohn2oo8]

It's funny how Republicans cheer for the economy to do poorly under Democratic leadership and get pissed whenever an unemployment number that's been calculated the same way for decades goes down. Would you have preferred it went up? Stayed the same?

Some of it is subconscious and some of it is deliberate, but it's clear Republicans in this country care more about Obama failing than America thriving.


What kind of bullshit accusation is that? Nobody is cheering the awful job numbers. It's a fucking national tragedy that 15% of the people in the US are unemployed or underemployed.

lol your next post about it being a fluke.
lol rooting for failure
lol you fail

[CosmicCowboy]

lol your next post about it being a fluke.
lol rooting for failure
lol you fail

You are the one with the major fail asshole.

Saying the job number appears to be a statistical fluke isn't rooting for the economy to fail dipshit.

[djohn2oo8]

You are the one with the major fail asshole.

Saying the job number appears to be a statistical fluke isn't rooting for the economy to fail dipshit.

http://cdn.randomfunnypicture.com/wp2/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Back-Flip-Fail.gif

[boutons_deux]

CC's favorite channel will clarifiy everything! :lol
Fox News Banners Job Conspiracy: ‘Is The Number Real?’ (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/05/968661/fox-news-banners-job-conspiracy-is-the-number-real/)
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Screen-shot-2012-10-05-at-12.30.20-PM.png

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/05/968661/fox-news-banners-job-conspiracy-is-the-number-real/

[scott]

189,000 jobs are added in August and the unemployment is 8.1%

Only 166,000 jobs added in September and the unemployment drops to 7.8%?

:lmao

I believe you are better at math than this.

[djohn2oo8]

I believe you are better at math than this.

Assumptions are dangerous.

[djohn2oo8]

CC's favorite channel will clarifiy everything! :lol
Fox News Banners Job Conspiracy: ‘Is The Number Real?’ (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/05/968661/fox-news-banners-job-conspiracy-is-the-number-real/)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Screen-shot-2012-10-05-at-12.30.20-PM.png

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/05/968661/fox-news-banners-job-conspiracy-is-the-number-real/

This is all they have left. It's hilarious

[Th'Pusher]

I just couldn't be happier that Romney made "Obama's" critical 8% unemployment rate such a central part of his campaign message.

[djohn2oo8]

I just couldn't be happier that Romney made "Obama's" critical 8% unemployment rate such a central part of his campaign message.


:lol Exactly. Those drones are headed right for Romney's campaign.

[djohn2oo8]

189,000 jobs are added in August and the unemployment is 8.1%

Only 166,000 jobs added in September and the unemployment drops to 7.8%?

:lmao

– Labor force grows. The labor force grew by 418,000 people (https://twitter.com/dgibber123/status/254198617634635776), so the drop in the unemployment rate was not due to people giving up on looking for work.


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/05/966371/good-news-september-jobs-report/

:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/05/966371/good-news-september-jobs-report/

:lmao

OK smart guy. Tell me how the labor force grew by 418,000 when only 114,000 new jobs (by the same report) were created.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL another thinkprogress clown

[djohn2oo8]

OK smart guy. Tell me how the labor force grew by 418,000 when only 114,000 new jobs (by the same report) were created.

:lmao are you really THAT stupid?

[LnGrrrR]

OK smart guy. Tell me how the labor force grew by 418,000 when only 114,000 new jobs (by the same report) were created.

Maybe 304,000 people started looking for work? *shrug*

[Drachen]

Valid Question CC:
I haven't read the report yet, but on NPR this morning, they were saying that it seemed that the differences came from revisions of the past two reports. The good thing being that employment figures were better than reported, the bad thing being that most of those revisions came from new government jobs (mostly state government).

I am just providing info, like I said, I haven't read the report yet.

[djohn2oo8]

Maybe 304,000 people started looking for work? *shrug*

I shouldn't be surprised that CC doesn't understand what "labor force" means.

[boutons_deux]

yep, labor force = job holders and (unemployed) job seekers

[boutons_deux]

the jobless rate will stay high as the economy picks up and out-of-labor-force people re-enter the labor forced as unemployed job seekers.

[TeyshaBlue]

There's an easy conflation, in the minds of the voters, of Labor Force and Employed.

That confusion is easily exploited, tbh.

[CosmicCowboy]

Maybe 304,000 people started looking for work? *shrug*

So seriously...if 114,000 people got new jobs and 304,000 new people started looking for jobs...how does unemployment go down?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/05/september-jobs-report-debunking-the-jobs-report-conspiracy-theories/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/10/september_unemployment-payrolls.jpg

[RandomGuy]

So seriously...if 114,000 people got new jobs and 304,000 new people started looking for jobs...how does unemployment go down?

Probably a net figure that controls for population growth, i.e.

gains-(net losses+population growth)= new jobs number

(edit)

one has to keep in mind that jobs are lost all the time, even in healthy economies, this is right and what free markets do, what matters is the NET number.

I think we quit firing teachers to fill budget gaps, just a hunch.

[ElNono]

Per here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/05/september-jobs-report-debunking-the-jobs-report-conspiracy-theories/):

The fact is that there’s not much that needs to be explained here. We’ve seen drops like this — and even drops bigger than this — before. Between July and August the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent — two-tenths of one percent. November-December of 2011 also saw a .2 percent drop. November-December of 2010 saw a .4 percent drop. This isn’t some incredible aberration. The fact that the unemployment rate broke under the psychologically important 8 percent line is making this number feel bigger to people than it really is.

[ChumpDumper]

OK smart guy. Tell me how the labor force grew by 418,000 when only 114,000 new jobs (by the same report) were created.Are newly created jobs the only jobs that can be filled?

[ElNono]

Doesn't sound like a .3% drop would require cooking any books...

[Drachen]

Are newly created jobs the only jobs that can be filled?

well, then there is this.

[RandomGuy]

Let’s get one thing out of the way: The data was not, as Jack Welch suggested in a now-infamous tweet, manipulated. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is set up to ensure the White House has no ability to influence it. As labor economist Betsey Stevenson wrote, “anyone who thinks that political folks can manipulate the unemployment data are completely ignorant of how the BLS works and how the data are compiled.” Plus, if the White House somehow was manipulating the data, don’t you think they would have made the payroll number look a bit better than 114,000? No one would have batted an eye at 160,000.

LOL conspiracy theories.

[RandomGuy]

A bit more on where the numbers come from and what they mean, for the wonks who care about such things:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/05/september-jobs-report-where-do-these-numbers-come-from/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein&tid=pp_widget

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/10/unemployment_error.jpg

Drop in unemployment, is "statistically significant".

[jack sommerset]

Food stamps, government housing, part time jobs you can live a pretty good life here in America. God bless

[Drachen]

Let’s get one thing out of the way: The data was not, as Jack Welch suggested in a now-infamous tweet, manipulated. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is set up to ensure the White House has no ability to influence it. As labor economist Betsey Stevenson wrote, “anyone who thinks that political folks can manipulate the unemployment data are completely ignorant of how the BLS works and how the data are compiled.” Plus, if the White House somehow was manipulating the data, don’t you think they would have made the payroll number look a bit better than 114,000? No one would have batted an eye at 160,000.

LOL conspiracy theories.


RG, I can't even remember any of their songs, but damn it, whenever you (or anyone) quotes that guy, all I can think of is that I know a group of guys who is better than him.

[RandomGuy]

How secure is it?

As my colleague Eli Saslow notes, the BLS process is highly confidential. Economists are put on an eight-day security lockdown in advance of the report, signing confidentiality agreements every morning. The computers they use feature heavy encryption, and data is placed in a safe even for bathroom breaks. The Wednesday before the release, the CPS data comes in, followed by the CES data a few days after.

On the day before the release, three copies of the report and a CD-ROM are placed in a safe and taken to downtown Washington from the secure location where they were prepared, and presented to the few White House officials who have permission for a sneak peek at the numbers. Journalists are given access to the information 30 minutes before release but have to connect to a secure network that prevents them from sending out the data ahead of its official release.

As nonpartisan as government gets

The BLS is a highly nonpartisan operation, existing since 1884 and headed by Jack Galvin, a career employee who ran the employment and unemployment statistics division from 1998 to 2011, and has held a variety of positions there since 1978. Prior to him, Keith Hall headed the agency from 2008 to 2012, following career positions at the Council of Economic Advisors and the International Trade Commission. It’s normal for BLS commissioners to span administrations and parties. Janet Norwood headed the agency from 1979 to 1991, spanning Carter, Reagan, and Bush I, while her predecessor Julius Shiskin headed it under Nixon, Ford and Carter.

Hall has told the Wall Street Journal that it is “impossible” to alter the numbers for political gain. But that hasn’t stopped some from harboring conspiracy theories about their political manipulation. Former GE chief Jack Welch today tweeted that “these Chicago guys will do anything…can’t debate so change numbers,” implying the Obama administration artificially inflated the figures.

But presidents themselves have worried about the agency in the past. Richard Nixon infamously asked his aide Fred Malek to count the number of Jews working in BLS, based on his delusion that Jewish liberals were trying to sabotage him through bad jobs numbers. Suffice it to say, none of these conspiracy theories — be they anti-semitic or anti-Obama — have any truth to them

[ElNono]

Meanwhile, here in Gov Fatass' state...

N.J. jobless rate nears 10 percent despite adding jobs (http://www.northjersey.com/news/NJ_set_to_release_August_jobless_figures.html)

[CosmicCowboy]

A bit more on where the numbers come from and what they mean, for the wonks who care about such things:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/05/september-jobs-report-where-do-these-numbers-come-from/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein&tid=pp_widget

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/10/unemployment_error.jpg



Drop in unemployment, is "statistically significant".

Good article...thanks for posting

[boutons_deux]

Meanwhile, here in Gov Fatass' state...

N.J. jobless rate nears 10 percent despite adding jobs (http://www.northjersey.com/news/NJ_set_to_release_August_jobless_figures.html)

CA's is down, but remains above national figure.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST060000&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=california+unemployment

[101A]

RG et al.

I am sure there are any number of contingencies in place to make damn sure the employment/non-employment numbers are legitimate....

I have suspected for over a year that THIS jobless report, in October of 2012 would, without a doubt, come hell or high water have the jobless rate dip below 8%. (7.8 being JUST below the rate that the country was at when Obama took office is something I just learned today; what a CRAZY coincidence).

Just as this number is "impossible" to manipulate; it was a VERY predictable number that just so happened to pop up at, well, the absolutely most convenient time possible. I predict that it will be revised downward in December. Just a hunch.

Romney was kind of stupid for focusing on the 8% number.

Actually, this makes me feel better about Obama as president either:

1. The fates and/or God are truly with him (as our president, this is good for us all)
2. His policies are actually working, and America's economy is improving (doesn't feel like it, but good for him and especially, us)

or

4. He is capable of covertly making the impossible, possible - manipulating the number (definitely want that guy on our side)

[101A]

BTW: Saslow is the guy who wrote about Obama's "Glistening Pectorals" back in '08 isn't he?

[LnGrrrR]

RG et al.

I am sure there are any number of contingencies in place to make damn sure the employment/non-employment numbers are legitimate....

I have suspected for over a year that THIS jobless report, in October of 2012 would, without a doubt, come hell or high water have the jobless rate dip below 8%. (7.8 being JUST below the rate that the country was at when Obama took office is something I just learned today; what a CRAZY coincidence).

Just as this number is "impossible" to manipulate; it was a VERY predictable number that just so happened to pop up at, well, the absolutely most convenient time possible. I predict that it will be revised downward in December. Just a hunch.

Romney was kind of stupid for focusing on the 8% number.

Actually, this makes me feel better about Obama as president either:

1. The fates and/or God are truly with him (as our president, this is good for us all)
2. His policies are actually working, and America's economy is improving (doesn't feel like it, but good for him and especially, us)

or

4. He is capable of covertly making the impossible, possible - manipulating the number (definitely want that guy on our side)

You disappoint me 101A. I was hoping that you had not omitted the number 3, but instead put a secret message in white such as "Obama is getting funding from Muslim terrorists to prop up his reign!"

[boutons_deux]

RG et al.

2. His policies are actually working, and America's economy is improving (doesn't feel like it, but good for him and especially, us)



Which of policies Barry's policies are working or failing to improve the economy and jobs?

The Repugs keep saying Barry's economic policies have failed, but I've never heard them list what those policies are, and how they are failing, IF the policies even exist.

[101A]

Which of policies Barry's policies are working or failing to improve the economy and jobs?

The Repugs keep saying Barry's economic policies have failed, but I've never heard them list what those policies are, and how they are failing, IF the policies even exist.

Whatever policies he is going to imply were responsible for this....I'm just a stupid insurance salesman - not an economist.

[101A]

Nm

[boutons_deux]

one successful economic policy is tax credits for wind, solar, residential/commercial insulation. $100Ms in activity, 10Ks of jobs, and new companies.

The threat of the, eg, wind credit expiring is already hurting that industry and causing layoffs. Even a Repug gov up north is pissed at Gecko for saying Gecko will kill those wind/solar credits, and probably kill loan guarantees for all kinds of alternative energy, transport projects.

[boutons_deux]

Still waiting for Repugs here to say which of Barry's economic policies are FAILING! this is a huge Repug campaign point, but like all their other propaganda, NO SPECIFICS.

[CosmicCowboy]

Still waiting for Repugs here to say which of Barry's economic policies are FAILING! this is a huge Repug campaign point, but like all their other propaganda, NO SPECIFICS.


I just loved the shit out of those electric golf carts Obama bought me for the ranch.

[boutons_deux]

I just loved the shit out of those electric golf carts Obama bought me for the ranch.

Still waiting for Repugs here to say which of Barry's economic policies are FAILING! this is a huge Repug campaign point, but like all their other propaganda, NO SPECIFICS.

[TeyshaBlue]

RG, I can't even remember any of their songs, but damn it, whenever you (or anyone) quotes that guy, all I can think of is that I know a group of guys who is better than him.

+10 Cloak of Inscrutablilty

[Clipper Nation]

LMAO at the neocons.... :cry "We're true job-creators, we want everyone to be employed except for when a Democrat is in the White House" :cry

[Drachen]

+10 Cloak of Inscrutablilty

Look up, now down, now at your hand. What is it? Yes, the Dagger of Inscrutability Piercing. Wield it on my previous post and be enlightend.

[DMX7]

I didn't have time to look at the report too thoroughly, but I heard they revised old job numbers up as well.

[Wild Cobra]

So seriously...if 114,000 people got new jobs and 304,000 new people started looking for jobs...how does unemployment go down?
That's what they don't understand.

Unemployment numbers should go up. Not down.

[DMX7]

That's what they don't understand.

Unemployment numbers should go up. Not down.

Businesses added 104,000 jobs while federal, state and local governments added 10,000.

The jobless rate fell sharply because it's calculated from a different survey than the official employment number. That household survey showed a robust 873,000 increase in employment and a 456,000 decline in unemployment.

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/national/article/217708/44/September-unemployment-rate-falls-to-78-

[DMX7]

Other positive news from above link.

One positive sign: The Labor Department revised up estimated job gains for July and August by a total 86,000. July's total rose from 141,000 to 181,000, while August increased from 96,000 to 142,000.

[Drachen]

That's what they don't understand.

Unemployment numbers should go up. Not down.

It has also been stated that newly created jobs aren't the only jobs available to be filled.

[CosmicCowboy]

It has also been stated that newly created jobs aren't the only jobs available to be filled.

that is a zero sum game. One in, one out. Net change zero.

[RandomGuy]

RG et al.

I am sure there are any number of contingencies in place to make damn sure the employment/non-employment numbers are legitimate....

I have suspected for over a year that THIS jobless report, in October of 2012 would, without a doubt, come hell or high water have the jobless rate dip below 8%. (7.8 being JUST below the rate that the country was at when Obama took office is something I just learned today; what a CRAZY coincidence).

Just as this number is "impossible" to manipulate; it was a VERY predictable number that just so happened to pop up at, well, the absolutely most convenient time possible. I predict that it will be revised downward in December. Just a hunch.

Romney was kind of stupid for focusing on the 8% number.

Actually, this makes me feel better about Obama as president either:

1. The fates and/or God are truly with him (as our president, this is good for us all)
2. His policies are actually working, and America's economy is improving (doesn't feel like it, but good for him and especially, us)

or

4. He is capable of covertly making the impossible, possible - manipulating the number (definitely want that guy on our side)

The economy doesn't quite turn that quickly or easily.

If you have some proof this is not a coincidence, feel free to present it. Otherwise, you are too smart to be substituting innuendo for data. :p:

FWIW, the trend line is pretty consistent since the end of the crisis, if you note the graph presented earlier.

[Drachen]

that is a zero sum game. One in, one out. Net change zero.

You know that there are a few million jobs that are available but unfilled due to a lack of skilled workers, right?

I am just saying that those already created jobs may be getting filled.

[RandomGuy]

That's what they don't understand.

Unemployment numbers should go up. Not down.

You are taking figures out of context without understanding how exactly they are arrived at and terms defined. Color me unsurprised.

I have already put forth what I think about what the figures represent. Feel free to research the report and debunk that, if you can.

[RandomGuy]

http://adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/REVISED_METHODOLOGY_DEC_2008.pdf

boom goes the dynamite.

[ElNono]

http://adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/REVISED_METHODOLOGY_DEC_2008.pdf

boom goes the dynamite.

2008 report? What's the significance?

[TeyshaBlue]

Whups.

[RandomGuy]

A level of employment is established in each cell by cumulating the predicted
value of the matched sample growth rate in each cell forward and backwards from
the most recently benchmarked March estimate of employment in that cell. Such
referencing effectively weights the growth rates of the ADP data in each cell by
the observed distribution of employment by industry and size classification.

Haven't had time to fully read through everything yet, but this seems to note that it controls for growth rates, and delivers, as I noted, a figure NET of payroll growth rates. All the time I have for this at the moment though.

Feel free to run with that Cobra. :p

[JohnnyMarzetti]

When the rate is above 8% republicans talk about it all the time when it drops they say it is BS. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

2008 report? What's the significance?

http://adpemploymentreport.com/methodology.aspx


The ADP National Employment Report®
Overview of Methodology & Methodological Enhancements
December 18, 2008
Prepared by Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC


Overview
Publication of the Employment Situation by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (the BLS) is the first - and generally the most important - release of government-sponsored economic data every month. Employment is an intrinsically important statistic. Furthermore, financial markets react, sometimes strongly, to "surprises" in the BLS' estimates of establishment employment that might signal future changes in monetary policy. Hence, information that helps analysts anticipate monthly changes in employment is valuable.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) is the nation's premier provider of payroll-related services. Currently, ADP processes over 500,000 payrolls, for approximately 430,000 separate business entities, covering over 23 million employees, in all major industries and states. While doing so, every month ADP collects a wealth of information related to payroll employment well before publication of the Employment Situation.

ADP has contracted with Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC to create and maintain from this rich, timely dataset new estimates of nonfarm private employment published in the ADP National Employment Report. These are constructed from ADP's data on payrolls following a procedure similar to that used by the BLS to process its monthly survey of Current Employment Statistics into the "official" estimates of establishment employment. The ADP National Employment Report is released, for public use only, two days prior to the Employment Situation.

Click here for complete detail of the methodology used to develop the ADP National Employment Report.



Given by the people who contract to prepare the data for the reports as illustrative of the methodology. Sorry, in a rush. the linked pdf is what you get when you click the bottom of the page here.

[ElNono]

Oh, I see. But the ADP Report isn't the BLS report, IIRC.

[RandomGuy]

or... if one prefers the BLS site itself:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

good faq there

[RandomGuy]

Oh, I see. But the ADP Report isn't the BLS report, IIRC.

Just figured that out myself, it was looking like a contractor to me that provided some data, still sifting through. My bad for being in a rush.

[ElNono]

Just figured that out myself, it was looking like a contractor to me that provided some data, still sifting through. My bad for being in a rush.

No biggie. I thought the other link you posted to Wapo and CC commented as a good post did explain how the BLS does it.

[jack sommerset]

Is this statement right? If you are a parttime worker making a quarter of what you used to make you are considered employed and if you can't collect unemployment any longer but still unemployed you don't count towards the rate. I read that on a news blogs comment page. God bless

[Wild Cobra]

that is a zero sum game. One in, one out. Net change zero.
Not always. There are quite a few employers not hiring and working current employees overtime instead. I can see some empty positions being filled, just not than many.

It seems to me there is really something fishy about how they get those numbers. Did that many more people really stop looking for work to make the numbers change that much? I think not. I think that people fell off the unemployment payment system, and had also already given up on looking for work.

[ElNono]

As pointed out earlier, the 0.3% drop seems to be well within the trend in previous years...

Nov-Dec 2010: down 0.4%
Nov-Dec 2011: down 0.2%
Nov-Dec 2012: down 0.3%

Not sure how what looks "fishy" about the last number compared to the rest.

EDIT: The bolded is wrong... Should be Sept-Oct. Then again, looks to be well within the regular movement of numbers.

[clambake]

so, this 8% thing being such a big deal means romney doesn't care about 39% now?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Other positive news from above link.

One positive sign: The Labor Department revised up estimated job gains for July and August by a total 86,000. July's total rose from 141,000 to 181,000, while August increased from 96,000 to 142,000.

They know this. CC for example was bitching about how cold the numbers be revised like that. I posted the BLS explanation on how the surveys and revisions are done. He left fow awhile and is now playing stupid again.

You are not going to get much better from entitled bitches that vote themselves no taxes but buy golf carts with government funds only to bitch about poor people getting AFDC being irresponsible.

[boutons_deux]

so, this 8% thing being such a big deal means romney doesn't care about 39% now?

it's 47%. He says now that he was COMPLETELY WRONG with his 47% "gaffe". Just a simple error of misspeaking among all the speeches and bullshit he says. He asks us to give him a break :lol

[ElNono]

I think the "being under 8%" and the election season is what's making this bigger than it is, tbh...

[boutons_deux]

I think the "being under 8%" and the election season is what's making this bigger than it is, tbh...

I think the 8% number comes from,IIRC, no incumbent Pres has ever been re-elected with 8% or more unemployment.

As Bitch McConnell said, the Repug priority is to defeat Obama, NOT help the economy, esp not get under the magic threshold of 8%. That's why the Repugs block the Vet job act, and the Jobs Act. They've been counting on high unemployment and bad economy to defeat Obama, rather than them putting a decent candidate and a credible campaign.

[CosmicCowboy]

They know this. CC for example was bitching about how cold the numbers be revised like that. I posted the BLS explanation on how the surveys and revisions are done. He left fow awhile and is now playing stupid again.

You are not going to get much better from entitled bitches that vote themselves no taxes but buy golf carts with government funds only to bitch about poor people getting AFDC being irresponsible.

Please quote the post I was bitching about revisions. It's not there.

You are so full of shit that you just make shit up and act like it is fact.

And yeah, I took advantage of Obama's electric car tax credits to get free golf carts for the ranch. Not exactly free, though, since I've probably paid more taxes in my life than you have earned income. I was paying taxes back in those years you fucktards thought the tax rates were "fair".

And yeah, a think there is a definite percentage of people on AFDC that are worthless pieces of shit and fucking, breeding self perpetuatng leeches on the system.

[CosmicCowboy]

I think the "being under 8%" and the election season is what's making this bigger than it is, tbh...

I started this thread when the rate was over 8%. I still think their number is fucked and off by multiple points, not percentages of points.

[LnGrrrR]

Please quote the post I was bitching about revisions. It's not there.

You are so full of shit that you just make shit up and act like it is fact.

And yeah, I took advantage of Obama's electric car tax credits to get free golf carts for the ranch. Not exactly free, though, since I've probably paid more taxes in my life than you have earned income. I was paying taxes back in those years you fucktards thought the tax rates were "fair".

And yeah, a think there is a definite percentage of people on AFDC that are worthless pieces of shit and fucking, breeding self perpetuatng leeches on the system.

Woah woah woah there. If you're going to use that logic, then anyone who's paid into the system can say that their stuff isn't technically "free" either. And I really don't see how you can rail against people on welfare, food stamps and the like if you use that argument. You used the system to get free golf carts, funded by taxpayer dollars, that you likely could've bought on your own dime. Others use the system to get food that they may or may not be able to purchase on their own. After all, if you can work the system, why not, right?

Now I'm somewhat being a Devil's Advocate here, because I don't have a problem with you using those tax credits. But if you're against tax credit deductions, and you're against the government investing in electric vehicles, it does seem odd. (I wouldn't necessarily say hypocritical because it's a Prisoner's Dilemma... why should you pay more if it doesn't make a big difference and everyone else isn't forced to as well?)

[ElNono]

I started this thread when the rate was over 8%. I still think their number is fucked and off by multiple points, not percentages of points.

I'm not nailing it on you. What I'm saying is we didn't get the outcry you saw today 4 weeks ago, when you started this thread, nor in many months prior, when the unemployment was growing.

IIRC, this administration didn't change the methodology. Looks kind of disingenuous to now claim they're cooking the book because things might be looking just a little bit better.

7.8% is still a lot no matter how you look at it.

[clambake]

Woah woah woah there. If you're going to use that logic, then anyone who's paid into the system can say that their stuff isn't technically "free" either. And I really don't see how you can rail against people on welfare, food stamps and the like if you use that argument. You used the system to get free golf carts, funded by taxpayer dollars, that you likely could've bought on your own dime. Others use the system to get food that they may or may not be able to purchase on their own. After all, if you can work the system, why not, right?

Now I'm somewhat being a Devil's Advocate here, because I don't have a problem with you using those tax credits. But if you're against tax credit deductions, and you're against the government investing in electric vehicles, it does seem odd. (I wouldn't necessarily say hypocritical because it's a Prisoner's Dilemma... why should you pay more if it doesn't make a big difference and everyone else isn't forced to as well?)

boom

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Please quote the post I was bitching about revisions. It's not there.

You are so full of shit that you just make shit up and act like it is fact.

And yeah, I took advantage of Obama's electric car tax credits to get free golf carts for the ranch. Not exactly free, though, since I've probably paid more taxes in my life than you have earned income. I was paying taxes back in those years you fucktards thought the tax rates were "fair".

And yeah, a think there is a definite percentage of people on AFDC that are worthless pieces of shit and fucking, breeding self perpetuatng leeches on the system.

Are you really going to be so coy as to behave like this entire thread is not about your attempt at an indictment about how the BLS acquires, compiles, adjusts and represents their data.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/49299718

You posted this link in response to:


So do you think they actually modified the way they do the numbers this month in an effort to manipulate the electorate? Is this your conspiracy theory

Perhaps you didn't read the link and perhaps you don't think affirming your position in response to his question but either way that is on you.

You should probably quit talking about my financial situation. You really have no clue and it really speaks all about you and nothing about me. We understand that your only priority is getting yours. By all means though continue acting like a shallow fuck.

While you sit there and boast about how many taxes you pay there is some context that needs to be pointed out. You have paid less taxes for the last 30 years than your parents or your parents parents ever did. In that time you have cut your tax rate from on average 18% to 11%. During that time period we have seen historic expansions to social services like the expansion of Medicare right as you pukes enter the age group to benefit from it. Because of this since 1965, on average your age group has seen a net $2.2m per capita in outlays versus what you pay in.

For the same amount of income you have paid less and received more than your parents or your parents parent. that doesn't make you righteous. That makes you in your words: a "worthless pieces of shit and fucking, breeding self perpetuatng leeches on the system."

[ChumpDumper]

that is a zero sum game. One in, one out. Net change zero.Completely false statement, princess.

Throw in the upwardly revised job creation numbers from the past couple of months and you have your answer if you choose not to conveniently ignore it.

It's hilarious; I'm not even crediting Obama for the numbers, but you'll be goddamned if you let even meagerly good news occur during his watch without putting on your tin foil hat.

[boutons_deux]

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/255115/slide_255115_1609681_free.jpg?1349469636952

Jack Welch On CNBC: 'Thank God' I Questioned The Jobs Numbers

Now Welch is claiming that an unemployment uptick in the latest report (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/october-jobs-report-unemployment-rate_n_2063675.html?icid=hp_front_top_art) has "confirmed [this] view."

"This month we had 171,000 jobs and we go up!" Welch said Monday morning on CNBC's Squawk Box (http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000125383#eyJ2aWQiOiIzMDAwMTI1MzgzIiwiZW5j VmlkIjoiajhEd1VxUzdOQkNrbnhhd1RiS3ZXQT09IiwidlRhYi I6InRyYW5zY3JpcHQiLCJ2UGFnZSI6MSwiZ05hdiI6WyLCoExh dGVzdCBWaWRlbyJdLCJnU2VjdCI6IkFMTCIsImdQYWdlIjoiMS IsInN5bSI6IiIsInNlYXJjaCI6IiJ9). "So we had 70,000 more jobs and we go up. Why? Because this thing is filled with assumptions."

Despite widespread criticism (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-gongloff/jack-welch-book-cooking_b_1954396.html) of Welch's conspiracy theory, he's largely stood by the original tweet (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/jack-welch-fox-news_n_1943311.html), admitting in a Wall Street Journal op-ed only that he should have used a question mark in the original tweet (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jack-welch-conspiracy-jobs-tweet_n_1954176.html), since his intention was to raise "a question" about the number's legitimacy. "Thank God I did," Welch added during Monday's Squawk Box appearance (http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000125383#eyJ2aWQiOiIzMDAwMTI1MzgzIiwiZW5j VmlkIjoiajhEd1VxUzdOQkNrbnhhd1RiS3ZXQT09IiwidlRhYi I6InRyYW5zY3JpcHQiLCJ2UGFnZSI6MSwiZ05hdiI6WyLCoExh dGVzdCBWaWRlbyJdLCJnU2VjdCI6IkFMTCIsImdQYWdlIjoiMS IsInN5bSI6IiIsInNlYXJjaCI6IiJ9).

GE's labor force fell by around 100,000 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jack-welch-conspiracy-jobs-tweet_n_1954176.html) during Welsh's tenure as head of the corporation, according to Fortune.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/jack-welch-cnbc_n_2076203.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110512&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

[ChumpDumper]

lol Welch is now claiming he influenced the latest report?

[dbestpro]

About 15 years ago I remember they changed the way the looked at unemployment. Brownsville Texas, which always had 10-12% unemployment went to 7% over night. I guess you can do what ever you want to with the numbers to make it fit your beliefs.

[Th'Pusher]

About 15 years ago I remember they changed the way the looked at unemployment. Brownsville Texas, which always had 10-12% unemployment went to 7% over night. I guess you can do what ever you want to with the numbers to make it fit your beliefs.

Are you suggesting the BLS made recent modifications to the way they calculate their numbers?

[dbestpro]

No, not at all, but often we see people try to do historical comparisons with two completely different types of analysis. Just an observation.

[Drachen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP0mhGmUbr0

time: 1:15 and 1:54

[SA210]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/69763_10152218601790471_2025553268_n.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

No, not at all, but often we see people try to do historical comparisons with two completely different types of analysis. Just an observation.

So you don't really have a point then. Nice to know.

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder what they might call an employment/unemployment number that includes businesses that could hire more people, but choose to work their people overtime instead. Like where I work, because it's cheaper than paying the extra insurance costs of employing more people. 10-12 hr days, six days a week, etc...

[boutons_deux]

Poverty growing among L.A. County veterans, study finds

Thousands of veterans in Los Angeles County are falling into poverty and unemployment, according to research commissioned by United Way of Greater Los Angeles, which issued a call to action Friday to better address the needs of returning service members.

"Our region is woefully unprepared with the support services necessary to ensure a smooth transition into civilian life," said the group's regional president, Elise Buik.

Although numerous programs exist to assist local veterans, coordination between them is insufficient, and they aren't getting consistent or timely data on the population they serve, United Way officials said.
Researchers analyzed data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey that is nearly three years old.

The county was home to some 328,000 veterans in 2010, according to the analysis conducted by the Economic Round Table, a nonprofit research group.

While most were old enough to have served in Vietnam and earlier conflicts, they included about 36,000 who served since 2001. By 2017, that figure is projected to grow by more than 24,000 as U.S. forces complete the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thousands of veterans are already falling through the cracks, said Alicia Lara, vice president of community investment at United Way of Greater Los Angeles.

The number of post-9/11 veterans living below the federal poverty line in L.A. County increased sharply during the recession, from about 4% in 2008 to nearly 12% in 2010, the analysis showed. That was approaching the poverty rate among civilians: nearly 16%.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/601/article/p2p-73240850/

[101A]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/69763_10152218601790471_2025553268_n.jpg

Damn, them coats fit good.

[Winehole23]

When the Labor Department released its always highly-anticipated jobs report this morning, the most-cited numbers looked pretty good at first glance, with the unemployment rate dropping a hair from 7.4 percent to 7.3 percent, and the economy adding around 160,000 new jobs. Seems good, right? At least not bad? Neil Irwin pulls back the curtain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/06/ignore-the-headline-this-was-a-very-bad-jobs-report/):


But in almost all the particulars, you can find signs that this job market is weaker than it appeared just a few months ago, and maybe getting worse. The drop in the unemployment rate was caused by 312,000 people dropping out of the labor force. The number of people actually reporting having a job actually fell by 112,000 in the survey on which the unemployment rate is based.
Moreover, some analysts were expecting that the job numbers from previous months, which are always updated from this initial first estimate, would be revised upwards if the economy were indeed gaining steam. Instead, as Joe Weisenthal put it (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-august-jobs-report-2013-9): “Last month was revised SHARPLY down from 162 to 104K. That is quite ominous.”
These numbers, as is evident above, are always subject to revision and it is unwise to put too much stock in any one report, but when so many numbers start slumping together, pessimism starts to set in. Irwin again:

Consider this: The nation has averaged 148,000 new jobs a month for the last three months. The number was 160,000 for the last six months, and 184,000 a month over the last year. That looks to me like a downward trend, no two ways about it. It’s certainly not the gradual acceleration that most mainstream economists have forecast as 2013 advances and the impact of tighter fiscal policy fades.
Want another sign? The proportion of the U.S. population that had a job in August was 58.6 percent. Six months earlier, the number was a whopping — wait for it — 58.6 percent. The year is nearly three-quarters over, and the economy isn’t growing fast enough to put a higher proportion of its citizens back to work.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/experts-agree-the-jobs-report-is-awful/