Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

You really think unemployment dropped?

Fuck Romney. And Fuck Obama. The economy sucks because the BIG BANKS control it!

---

October 5. Today’s employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows 114,000 new jobs in September and a drop in the rate of unemployment from 8.1% to 7.8%. As 114,000 new jobs are not sufficient to stay even with population growth, the drop in the unemployment rate is the result of not counting discouraged workers who are defined away as “not in the labor force.”

According to the BLS, “In September, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force.” These individuals “wanted and were available for work,” but “they were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.”

In other words, 2.5 million unemployed Americans were not counted as unemployed.

The stock market rose on the phony good news. Bloomberg’s headline: “U.S. Stocks Rise as Unemployment Rate Unexpectedly Drops.”

A truer picture of the dire employment situation is provided by the 600,000 rise over the previous month in involuntary part-time workers. According to the BLS, “These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”

by Anonymousreply 4210/10/2012

Dear heart, if you really must post these ignorant rants, the least you can do is credit the original author and post a link.

by Anonymousreply 210/06/2012

I got a blow job if that counts.

by Anonymousreply 610/06/2012

What a surprise. OP, R1, R3, R4, R5, and R7 are all the same poster. Not only that, but he's the same guy who's arguing for Iran's right to arm itself with nuclear weapons over on this thread:

by Anonymousreply 810/06/2012

R10, you just called yourself out. R8 only outed you as the nutjob on another thread. And now you have created a thread where you are essentially the only responder.

by Anonymousreply 1110/06/2012

LoL at the wall-o-yellow from OP.

by Anonymousreply 1210/06/2012

I believe it more than the terror alert needed to be raised before Bush's 2nd election.

by Anonymousreply 1310/06/2012

Are you surprised he's a loon?

Move along folks, nothing to see here...

by Anonymousreply 1410/06/2012

It's summer. Of course more people are employed. But probably in shit service jobs. And most of them seasonal.

by Anonymousreply 1510/06/2012

America is such a wonderful place. They still have people there who take Lew Rockwell seriously.

by Anonymousreply 1610/06/2012

OP is piss-yeller and crazy as the proverbial shit-house rat. The End.

by Anonymousreply 1710/06/2012

YES it did

I live in Chicago and anyone who WANTS to work can get a job. It may not be the one you want but you can get a job. It may not pay what you got but so what?

The thing your brain can't comprehend is the wage rate.

In Illinois minimum wage is $8.25/hr

So let's say a computer guy makes $35/hr. He's laid off. But then I hire four college kids at minimum wage to do his job.

Well what do you know. I had ONE person doing a job and now I have four doing it.

I created THREE jobs. (1 lost + four gained)

This is great news

Except the four new jobs pay $33/hr (4 X 8.25) and I got rid of a $35.hr job, I only created $33/hr worth of jobs. Thus a $2 net loss of wages.

So while the unemployment rate fell a lot, the wage rate is still the problem.

by Anonymousreply 1810/06/2012

Why do Republicans want America to fail?

Why do Republicans hate America?

by Anonymousreply 1910/06/2012

[quote]You really think unemployment dropped?

Well I've personally been unemployed for the last few months and am starting a decent paying job this Wednesday (with full benefits)....so yeah, I do believe it.

by Anonymousreply 2010/06/2012

Any statistician could have issued a report saying obesity rates have dropped too.

Didn't you people take statistics in college? Manipulating stats, is a fundamental part of promotion today.

by Anonymousreply 2110/06/2012

More like manipulating his brain lobe with a wire hanger was a fundamental part of r13's childhood.

by Anonymousreply 2210/06/2012

60% of jobs lost in the recession were mid-skill, middle income jobs. 20% of new private sector jobs fall into that category with the rest being retail and food service jobs that don't pay a living wage.

Tell me again how well Obama's done with the recovery and why were don't have some sort of WPA program?

by Anonymousreply 2310/06/2012

R23, send your query to Congress and then get back to us.

by Anonymousreply 2410/06/2012

Let's face it, people need to believe in something and will bend the truth to make themselves feel happy.

by Anonymousreply 2510/06/2012

Sorry your life sucks so bad, r25.

by Anonymousreply 2610/06/2012

Lew Rockwell troll, you are nuttier than a squirrel turd.

by Anonymousreply 2710/06/2012

[quote]Sorry your life sucks so bad, [R25].

That's the best you've got?

by Anonymousreply 2810/06/2012

Yes I do but I don't think that means our economy is going to pick up.

I see a lot of hiring and help wanted signs up in area more than I saw all summer. These are retail and restaurant jobs. Like was said upthread, new jobs are being created but the pay rate on these jobs is not good.

I expect to see the unemployment rate continue to drop as the seasonal hires start working.

by Anonymousreply 2910/06/2012

R23-

WPA jobs= pay first shift to dig a hole, and second shift to fill it back up.

That "puts people to work" but destroys wealth in the process. Until our banking system is taken out of the hands of crony capitalists in DC this Greater Depression will continue.

Public education has worked- make the majority too stupid to understand basic economics and they will support anyone who promises more bread and circuses.

by Anonymousreply 3010/07/2012

Not true R30 -- much infrastructure was created or shored up during the 30s.

We need that now.

by Anonymousreply 3110/07/2012

From an acquaintence:

"I've heard it every freakin' year I've worked for my current employer: 'Common, you can tell me... You guys fudge the numbers for the white house, don't you?'

In all seriousness: we don't.

I know every guy who knows every 'important' number we produce... There's no way it's happening. None. Not possible. Too many people work on the numbers with/under them, and all of them have varying levels of commitment, and ideologies.

There is literally no way 1) you could get them to agree to do it, 2) if you could pull it off, there's no way you could get them to agree on a direction TO fudge them, 3) ALL of them would be more than willing to rat on the others.

So when you hear about today's jobs numbers, and some asshat who don't know shit suggests the government cooks the books, have them call me."

by Anonymousreply 3210/07/2012

I agree, R32. There are too many people involved for it to be faked (unless it it was at the top level, and that is possible but unlikely)

The bigger problem is that the number is meaningless. The metrics used are outdated (when the current technology allows for much more nuanced and accurate information) and the way they are calculated are designed (not by economists, but by a politically motivated bureaucracy) to minimize structural problems.

Why not use payroll? Or differentiate between part time and full time, and pay rates?

by Anonymousreply 3310/08/2012

Were the employment numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics cooked? It's possible that seasonal adjustment factors had something to do with the gains. Why and how adjustment factors are adjusted, only the BLS insiders know for sure, but here's an interesting find by Ed Yardeni:

 While I doubt that anyone at BLS tampered with the household data for political motives, I’m certain no one even thought to bother with the payroll employment numbers. September’s increase was a measly 114,000. I give much more weight to the revisions to the previous two months, which tend to be upwards when the economy is expanding. They totaled 86,000 during July and August, raising their monthly average gain to 161,500. The oddity here was that upward revisions occurred at the local-government level--mainly the hiring of school teachers (up 77,000)--which nearly matched the revision to overall payrolls.

Here's what I wrote in 2008 about the seasonal adjustment problem with teachers around this time of year:

As far as unemployment numbers, on September 7 [2008] we commented on the much weaker than expected payroll numbers released at the time:

An odd outlier was employment in local government education which fell by 32,000 in August, as seasonal hiring was less than usual. This unusual education jobs number accounted for approximately 30% of the difference between consensus forecasts and the actual payroll number. This would be the first time in history that a recession was led by summer school teachers!

Almost a month later, with the masses looking for the next distorted piece of government data, WSJ comments on the outlier we discussed on the day of the release:

Many economists suspect the drop in August payrolls was exaggerated by a fluky fall in local government payrolls, and new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics supports that.

On Tuesday the BLS released state payroll data for August. If you sum up the changes across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, the total rose 159,000, compared to the decline of 4,000 in the national data.

That doesn’t mean the national tally is wrong; sum-of-the-states data are hampered by differing response rates by states and the fact the BLS seasonally adjusts each state separately, notes Ray Stone of Stone& McCarthy Research Associates.

That said, he says the difference is unusually large. In part that may simply be catch-up, since the sum of the states total has lagged the national total for some time. But he says the principal source of divergence in August appears to be in government payrolls. The national tally of government jobs fell 28,000, while the sum-of-the-states tally rose 88,000.

Mr. Stone takes this as evidence that the national data have been distorted by quirky seasonal adjustment, which is made difficult by “the timing issues.surrounding academic years, and the inconsistency in how teachers are paid over the summer. Some get paid on a 12-month basis, others on a 9- or 10- month basis. Any shift from year to year in the relative incidence of “months-paid” will play havoc with the seasonally adjusted teacher payrolls.” Thus, this may explain the quirkiness in the payroll employment numbers. But what about the huge jump in the household data (different data than the payroll numbers)? Yardeni has this to say:

 According to September’s controversial household survey data, employment rose by a whopping 873,000, with the labor force up 418,000 and unemployment down 456,000. Monthly gains of 500,000 or more in household employment are rare, but there have been eleven of them in this volatile series since 2000. They are often followed by sharp reversals in the next monthly report.Â

(cont)

by Anonymousreply 3410/08/2012

Bottom line: While there is clear evidence that incorrect seasonal adjustments for teachers may be skewing the payroll numbers, there are likely unknown (deep in the data) adjustments that are skewing data in the household survey also.

Writes Yardeni about other oddities in the numbers that suggest a correction to the data should be coming: The employment gain [in the household data] was attributable to an increase of 838,000 in full-time employment, while part-time employment fell 26,000. What’s odd is that among those working part-time (which edged down slightly), there was a 582,000 increase in those working part-time for economic reasons. In other words, lots of people found full-time jobs, and lots of people who wanted to work full time could only find part-time jobs. Got that? Even odder is that the payroll survey showed that employment in the temporary help industry edged down by 2,000 in September.Â

As highlighted above, according to Yardeni, these kinds of outliers are usually corrected in the following month's data. But, here's where things get really interesting. The next employment data from the BLS is scheduled to be released on November 2, four days before the presidential election.

That release may tell us a lot more as to whether the BLS is playing footsie with the president or not. Will they take a knife to this months data and readjust it downward, as often happens after such a huge quirky gain?

by Anonymousreply 3510/09/2012

The way unemployment is measured, I honestly believe it dropped. But, as always, there's the issue of people who have stopped trying who don't count in the stats, and the stats say nothing of the quality of jobs added to the economy.

So, yes, unemployment numbers can improve, but that doesn't mean the economy isn't still awful.

by Anonymousreply 3610/09/2012

R36

If we used payroll data (which can be measured weekly) it would provide a MUCH more accurate snapshot, but wouldn't serve the interest of TPTB.

The unemployment figure (as measured by 1940s standards) is over 20%. As it stands, "workforce participation" is at a generational low, and income standards are lower than they were in the early 70s.

by Anonymousreply 3710/09/2012

In the Land of Discouraged Workers The Bad News in the New Jobs Report by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Today’s employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows 114,000 new jobs in September and a drop in the rate of unemployment from 8.1% to 7.8%. As 114,000 new jobs are not sufficient to stay even with population growth, the drop in the unemployment rate is the result of not counting discouraged workers who are defined away as “not in the labor force.”

According to the BLS, “In September, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force.” These individuals “wanted and were available for work,” but “they were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.”

In other words, 2.5 million unemployed Americans were not counted as unemployed.

The stock market rose on the faux good news. Bloomberg’s headline: “U.S. Stocks Rise as Unemployment Rate Unexpectedly Drops.”

A truer picture of the dire employment situation is provided by the 600,000 rise over the previous month in involuntary part-time workers. According to the BLS, “These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”

Turning to the 114,000 new jobs, once again the jobs are concentrated in lowly paid domestic service jobs that cannot be exported. Manufacturing jobs declined by 16,000.

As has been the case for a decade, two categories–health care and social assistance (primarily ambulatory health care services) and waitresses and bartenders account for 53% of the new jobs. The BLS never ceases to find ever growing employment of people in restaurants and bars despite the rising dependence of the US population on food stamps. The elderly are rising as a percentage of the American population, but I sometimes wonder if employment in ambulatory health care services is rising faster than the elderly population.

Whether these reported jobs are real, I do not know.

The rest of the new jobs were accounted for by retail trade, transportation and warehousing, financial activities (primarily credit intermediation), professional and business services (primarily administrative and waste services), and state government education, where the 13,600 reported new jobs seem odd in light of the teacher layoffs and rise in classroom size.

The high-tech jobs that economists promised would be our reward for offshoring American manufacturing jobs and tradable professional services, such as software engineering and IT, have never materialized. “The New Economy” was just another hoax, like “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction” and “Iranian nukes.”

While employment falters, the consumer price index (CPI-U) in August increased 0.6 percent, the largest since June 2009. If the August rate is annualized, it means bad news on the inflation front. Instead of bringing us high tech jobs, is “the New Economy” bringing back the stagflation of the late 1970s? Time will tell.

by Anonymousreply 3910/09/2012

[quote]As 114,000 new jobs are not sufficient to stay even with population growth, the drop in the unemployment rate is the result of not counting discouraged workers who are defined away as “not in the labor force.”

No, actually, it's not. It's two different surveys with two different methodologies. This idiot doesn't know what he's talking about.

by Anonymousreply 4010/09/2012

[quote]As 114,000 new jobs are not sufficient to stay even with population growth, the drop in the unemployment rate is the result of not counting discouraged workers who are defined away as “not in the labor force.”

Yes it is.

And:

[quote]Turning to the 114,000 new jobs, once again the jobs are concentrated in lowly paid domestic service jobs that cannot be exported. Manufacturing jobs declined by 16,000.

[quote]As has been the case for a decade, two categories–health care and social assistance (primarily ambulatory health care services) and waitresses and bartenders account for 53% of the new jobs. The BLS never ceases to find ever growing employment of people in restaurants and bars despite the rising dependence of the US population on food stamps. The elderly are rising as a percentage of the American population, but I sometimes wonder if employment in ambulatory health care services is rising faster than the elderly population.

[quote]Whether these reported jobs are real, I do not know.

[quote]The rest of the new jobs were accounted for by retail trade, transportation and warehousing, financial activities (primarily credit intermediation), professional and business services (primarily administrative and waste services), and state government education, where [bold]the 13,600 reported new jobs seem odd in light of the teacher layoffs and rise in classroom size.[/bold]

by Anonymousreply 4110/10/2012

[quote]Yes it is.

No, it isn't. That's already been thoroughly discussed and debunked. It's the reason that so many conservatives are claiming that the books are cooked: because the other survey *doesn't* show a corresponding drop in the number of people leaving the work force.

The rest of that article was equally ill-informed and equally not worth paying attention to.

by Anonymousreply 4210/10/2012
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.