Unemployment Rate Falls to 7.8%

[Rochard]

Just months before the election unemployment falls to 7.8%. How fucking convenient.

[2012]

sure it did.

[sperbonzo]

EVERYTHING IS FINE. NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

[HelmutKohl]

Thank you, Mr. President

[Due]

Seasonable workers!

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Just months before the election unemployment falls to 7.8%. How fucking convenient.

If they were going to do for the election. Wouldn't it be 7.2 or 6.8? When its shitty its oh that's real. lol

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by tony286

If they were going to do for the election. Wouldn't it be 7.2 or 6.8? When its shitty its oh that's real. lol

C'mon Tony, you can't be THAT partisan. The fact that they don't count people that have given up looking, or the people that are having to work part-time jobs, etc.... those numbers have been rigged for many years.

Seriously man. If this was a Republican in office, would you beleive these figures? Remember when unemplyment under Bush went to 5.2% and everyone was screaming about it? ....and pointing out, CORRECTLY, that the way they figured the numbers was blatant manipulation of real life facts?


But when you're party is in power, then it's accurate???



.

[potter]

Google still has it at the 8.1 range: http://www.google.com/publicdata/exp...mployment+rate

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

C'mon Tony, you can't be THAT partisan. The fact that they don't count people that have given up looking, or the people that are having to work part-time jobs, etc.... those numbers have been rigged for many years.

Seriously man. If this was a Republican in office, would you beleive these figures? Remember when unemplyment under Bush went to 5.2% and everyone was screaming about it? ....and pointing out, CORRECTLY, that the way they figured the numbers was blatant manipulation of real life facts?


But when you're party is in power, then it's accurate???



.

Obama runs the Labor Dept?

[Wizzo]

The number doesn't matter since there's a number of factors that could effect it, the reality is people vote based on their actual lives.

I could give a shit if the unemployment rate was 2% if I didn't have a job and was struggling to feed myself and family I would want a change or similarly if it was 12% yet I was well employed and making good money along with those around me I wouldn't care nearly as much.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Obama runs the Labor Dept?

Thank you. after a while that's what the extreme pundits,who are big book sellers want you to believe no info except the info they give you is true. Its brilliant really. And no I never questioned the employment numbers when Bush was president ,in fact I voted for him his first term.

[onwebcam]

Falls or fudged?

[Zoxxa]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

C'mon Tony, you can't be THAT partisan. The fact that they don't count people that have given up looking, or the people that are having to work part-time jobs, etc.... those numbers have been rigged for many years.

Seriously man. If this was a Republican in office, would you beleive these figures? Remember when unemplyment under Bush went to 5.2% and everyone was screaming about it? ....and pointing out, CORRECTLY, that the way they figured the numbers was blatant manipulation of real life facts?


But when you're party is in power, then it's accurate???

.

So since 2009, there have been no improvements to the unemployment situation?

If you can't trust the labor department, then who do you listen to?

Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or whatever, shouldn't you all be happy that there are signs of slow but steady improvement?

[Captain Kawaii]

They never publish the real numbers anyway. 7.8% is less than half the real number. In some markets it's in the mid 20%. You have to go to state level to get the real numbers.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Just months before the election unemployment falls to 7.8%. How fucking convenient.

Probably going to go lower, just in time.

[Zoxxa]

Originally Posted by Captain Kawaii

They never publish the real numbers anyway. 7.8% is less than half the real number. In some markets it's in the mid 20%. You have to go to state level to get the real numbers.

So what are the real numbers then? Where can you show them to us please?

[Minte]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Obama runs the Labor Dept?

No.but when things are good he gets to fly around in a luxury Boeing 747,,and when things are bad he should have to take a cab.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Zoxxa

So since 2009, there have been no improvements to the unemployment situation?

If you can't trust the labor department, then who do you listen to?

Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or whatever, shouldn't you all be happy that there are signs of slow but steady improvement?

No they want it all to fail ,they think it will vindicate them but they really don't think after that happens the ramifications.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Minte

No.but when things are good he gets to fly around in a luxury Boeing 747,,and when things are bad he should have to take a cab.

like every other president? Oh forgot.They all flew coach and stayed at motel 6.

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by Captain Kawaii

They never publish the real numbers anyway. 7.8% is less than half the real number. In some markets it's in the mid 20%. You have to go to state level to get the real numbers.

They can't know for sure the real numbers, so they use data they actually can measure. According to Daily Finance though, if you ignore the labor statistics numbers, which are still valid in context as long as you understand what it is and most do.

Bottom line: The numbers that matter in the U.S. economy are the total number of jobs and the number of jobs created, not the constantly massaged unemployment rate and not-in-labor-force numbers.

If correct, in comparison then during these terms...

Clinton 1st term / +2.60%
Clinton 2nd term / +1.60%

Bush 1st term / +0.51%
Bush 2nd term / -0.84%

Obama 1st term / +0.84%

[Captain Kawaii]

Originally Posted by Zoxxa

So what are the real numbers then? Where can you show them to us please?

You have to look for what I believe are called the "TI" numbers? Maybe someone can help me out here. Its the number counties and states publish that helps to provide their various fundings from FED level. For example, a couple years back when Nevada was publishing 11 or 12% unemployment, Las Vegas was at 22-23%. It's the total number out of work. The BS number in the news is basically only the number of people at unemployment office making claims. Someone mentioned that earlier.

[Zoxxa]

Originally Posted by tony286

No they want it all to fail ,they think it will vindicate them but they really don't think after that happens the ramifications.

"They" being Republicans? I was speaking to sperbonzo specifically, I don't care about parties. This whole "them" vs "us" mentality is out of control, not much seems to be getting done. You all have to co-exist.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

I'm pretty skeptical that the current unemployment numbers are so easily manipulated. When the govt or the major political parties usually want to mislead people about employment numbers, they generally change the formula for calculating employment - i.e., how active duty military, incarcerated people, longterm unemployed, part-time workers, etc., are counted.

A better example of an "October surprise" occurred back in 1980, when the Reagan presidential campaign is alleged to have secretly cut an arms for hostages deal with Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeni, which ensured that the US embassy hostages would not be released until after the elections (helping to secure a victory for Reagan).

Minutes after Reagan was sworn into office, an announcement was made that the 52 US embassy hostages were suddenly going to be released, 444 days after being captured in the seizure of the US embassy.



How did they get away with it?



Let's not forget that portions of the money involved with the Iranian hostage deal, were illegally diverted to secretly finance a guerilla war in Nicaragua, along with illegal drug money.



ADG

[Tom_PM]

There's also been what.. 30 straight months of job growth as well? 29? I can't remember because it's so many.

But.. don't try telling some people that things are getting better under Obama.. you'll just be told "yeah well it woulda been EVEN BETTER under one of our boys". As if that's what you were talking about.

Not that I'm cynical or anything, it's just that I'm cynical.



Reagan also raised taxes 11 times.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Zoxxa

"They" being Republicans? I was speaking to sperbonzo specifically, I don't care about parties. This whole "them" vs "us" mentality is out of control, not much seems to be getting done. You all have to co-exist.

Not republicans, the whole its all going to crumble crowd.

[LAJ]

Thread saved... carry on.

[Zoxxa]

Originally Posted by Captain Kawaii

You have to look for what I believe are called the "TI" numbers? Maybe someone can help me out here. Its the number counties and states publish that helps to provide their various fundings from FED level. For example, a couple years back when Nevada was publishing 11 or 12% unemployment, Las Vegas was at 22-23%. It's the total number out of work. The BS number in the news is basically only the number of people at unemployment office making claims. Someone mentioned that earlier.

Are these numbers published anywhere?
Are they released only annually?

To be honest, I personally find your media outlets are addicted to numbers too often.
Reminds me of clicking refresh on CCBill stats every 5 minutes, or a trade script.
Should be checking over a 3-6 month period, or even a year.

So even if the number given by the media is amount from unemployment office making claims. This number seems to be decreasing, again, shouldn't this be good news for everyone?

[madm1k3]

Yes the numbers are rigged

The Canadian Jobs report came out today and it added more jobs than expected as well, and of course our conservative government is taking credit for adding jobs.

The problem is the numbers have been rigged for twenty years, so I hate when both political parties use these numbers as cold hard facts when it benefits them, but they are clearly rigged when it goes against them

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Due

Seasonable workers!

That's exactly what my wife said - seasonal workers. The retail industry is starting to hire people for the Christmas season. Fuck, I see Cosco and Target already have Christmas stuff out... And if that's the case, then this number will go down even more just before the election...

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by madm1k3

The problem is the numbers have been rigged for twenty years, so I hate when both political parties use these numbers as cold hard facts when it benefits them, but they are clearly rigged when it goes against them

Exactly.



Meanwhile, Even CNBC seems a little confused by the numbers....


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


"Job growth remained tame in September, with the economy creating just 114,000 net new positions though the unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent, the first time it has been below 8 percent in 43 months.

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

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






.

[Zoxxa]

Originally Posted by Rochard

That's exactly what my wife said - seasonal workers. The retail industry is starting to hire people for the Christmas season. Fuck, I see Cosco and Target already have Christmas stuff out... And if that's the case, then this number will go down even more just before the election...

9.5% - 2 years ago this time.
8.9% - last year this time.
7.8% - Now

[Tom_PM]

The rigged numbers seem to be a valid talking point when they're high.

[Brujah]

I don't think it's fair to say the numbers are rigged. The formula is consistent, so it's probably more accurate to just say the formula is flawed whenever someone uses it.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

I'm pretty skeptical that the current unemployment numbers are so easily manipulated. When the govt or the major political parties usually want to mislead people about employment numbers, they generally change the formula for calculating employment - i.e., how active duty military, incarcerated people, longterm unemployed, part-time workers, etc., are counted.

I've always been under the impression that the true unemployment rate is difficult to computer. People fall off of the unemployment payrolls for various reasons at different rates, and are still unemployed. For example, my wife was denied unemployment and was unemployed for two years and wasn't on anyone's books. How many people just run out of unemployment and just go on without it - still unemployed.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

I'm pretty skeptical that the current unemployment numbers are so easily manipulated. When the govt or the major political parties usually want to mislead people about employment numbers, they generally change the formula for calculating employment - i.e., how active duty military, incarcerated people, longterm unemployed, part-time workers, etc., are counted.

A better example of an "October surprise" occurred back in 1980, when the Reagan presidential campaign is alleged to have secretly cut an arms for hostages deal with Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeni, which ensured that the US embassy hostages would not be released until after the elections (helping to secure a victory for Reagan).

Minutes after Reagan was sworn into office, an announcement was made that the 52 US embassy hostages were suddenly going to be released, 444 days after being captured in the seizure of the US embassy.



How did they get away with it?



Let's not forget that portions of the money involved with the Iranian hostage deal, were illegally diverted to secretly finance a guerilla war in Nicaragua, along with illegal drug money.



ADG

I was there and if he had something to do with it or not, why didn't Carter do it? Scary if he did it and Carter couldn't. Pretty much, they weren't afraid of Carter, they were afraid of Reagan. He dealt with foreign powers with strength. He sure as hell didn't bow to them.

[Robbie]

There were LESS jobs created this month than the last. But for the second month in a row more people LEFT the job market and gave up trying to find a job.

Just saw these numbers crunched on CNN.
If all those people had not given up and stopped looking for a job the numbers are FAR different. They said that if the number of people in the job market were the same as when Obama took office the unemployment rate would be 10.7%!

There's your real number. 10.7

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I've always been under the impression that the true unemployment rate is difficult to computer. People fall off of the unemployment payrolls for various reasons at different rates, and are still unemployed. For example, my wife was denied unemployment and was unemployed for two years and wasn't on anyone's books. How many people just run out of unemployment and just go on without it - still unemployed.

Can't remember when, but unemployment was shifted to include those in the military at one point. Just like Clinton hired a crap load of security for airports to lower unemployment

[96ukssob]

How ironic..

regardless, American's are greedy morons who think they deserve 10x than that they are really worth. Trust me, I've been trying to hire people for $10/hr to do a job that someone in another country would KILL for, yet they think they are worth 5x that.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by Robbie

There were LESS jobs created this month than the last. But for the second month in a row more people LEFT the job market and gave up trying to find a job.

Just saw these numbers crunched on CNN.
If all those people had not given up and stopped looking for a job the numbers are FAR different. They said that if the number of people in the job market were the same as when Obama took office the unemployment rate would be 10.7%!

There's your real number. 10.7

scary, just scary. Didn't Romney make a reference to the fact that the rate was skewed?

[Zoxxa]

Originally Posted by Robbie

There were LESS jobs created this month than the last. But for the second month in a row more people LEFT the job market and gave up trying to find a job.

Just saw these numbers crunched on CNN.
If all those people had not given up and stopped looking for a job the numbers are FAR different. They said that if the number of people in the job market were the same as when Obama took office the unemployment rate would be 10.7%!

There's your real number. 10.7

Sorry, I didn't really follow that, where can we read it on CNN?

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Zoxxa

Sorry, I didn't really follow that, where can we read it on CNN?

I didn't read it....I just saw it a few minutes ago when one of their financial anchors was explaining it.

And if you can't follow it...just look up last months numbers online. All the news organizations explained it very carefully.

Here it is in my condensed version: Last month the rate dropped a couple of points. But LESS jobs were created than the month before. That shouldn't be able to happen. There should be MORE jobs created to drop the unemployment rate.
But what happened is that more people gave up looking for work and dropped out of the work force.

The official unemployment rate does NOT count those people. So the rate showed that unemployment was down...even though it was not.

This month even LESS new jobs were created than last month (because everyone is holding off until after the election). And yet the rate dropped again.
And that's because for the second month in a row even more people dropped out of the job market.

Does that make sense? I'm not an economist so I don't know if I'm explaining it very well.

[woj]

You guys should look at raw data, not some spin you get from news sources...

www.bls.gov
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm

Here is a good one to look at:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

so past year the employment did indeed increase, BUT only at a slightly higher rate than population growth..

[tony286]

http://www.businessinsider.com/septe...report-2012-10

[keysync]

The labor dept numbers are based on phone interviews.

That alone should tell you how easy it would be to sway the numbers how ever the fuck you want.

[Relentless]

The real number is around 23%, which includes people unemployed along with those who stopped looking and those who are underemployed working part time or lower quality jobs than what they are qualified for...

The importance is that the number is improving rather than getting worse and that will matter more in the election than all the conventions and debates combined.

Now Obama gets to say factually that the economy is recovering and Romney can say its happening too slowly. A much better position for Obama than if the numbers got worse.

The numbers are being compared to the same numbers in the same way by impartial policy wonks from both parties. You can argue the number is off, but its off by as much as it always is, so all that matters is the rate of change and the number this time versus last time.

[RyuLion]

Originally Posted by Due

Seasonable workers!

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by tony286

http://www.businessinsider.com/septe...report-2012-10

That looks promising.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Can't remember when, but unemployment was shifted to include those in the military at one point. Just like Clinton hired a crap load of security for airports to lower unemployment

Seriously, this is the dumbest thing I've read all month. Do you realize how many security guards that would have to be hired to effect the number at all? Are you drunk?

[Zoxxa]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I didn't read it....I just saw it a few minutes ago when one of their financial anchors was explaining it.

And if you can't follow it...just look up last months numbers online. All the news organizations explained it very carefully.

Here it is in my condensed version: Last month the rate dropped a couple of points. But LESS jobs were created than the month before. That shouldn't be able to happen. There should be MORE jobs created to drop the unemployment rate.
But what happened is that more people gave up looking for work and dropped out of the work force.

The official unemployment rate does NOT count those people. So the rate showed that unemployment was down...even though it was not.

This month even LESS new jobs were created than last month (because everyone is holding off until after the election). And yet the rate dropped again.
And that's because for the second month in a row even more people dropped out of the job market.

Does that make sense? I'm not an economist so I don't know if I'm explaining it very well.

Yes, thank you.

Did they mention what the number / percentage is for these people that are not in the work force compared to the past? Or..."number of people in the job market were the same as when Obama took office"...What was that number compared to now?

You don't have to dig up info if you have better shit to do, just curious.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by RyuLion

Why are you on here? Isn't it orange picking season? You're supposed to be out the groves right now!


(lazy bastard!)




.