Do you believe it. Drop in Unemployment.???

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
There are a number of sketchy things about it.

First of all it is a small sample phone poll asking people if they are working. It is a very volitile number compared with other measurements.

Second, the bulk of it is people quitting trying to get jobs and additionally all the part time jobs for the ramp up through the holidays.
 

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
Anyone considering the 50% margin of error that these new number utilize? The margin of error here is 400k out of a 800k stat!?! I do believe anyone actually using this stat, read that in the disclaimer that is always provided with. Is that in O's talking points being quoted everywhere?
 

FreedomWorks

Well-Known Member
Bush did it. Obama is not respnosable for the unemployment rate. Thats what I've been hearing for the past 3 years.
 

FreedomWorks

Well-Known Member
This morning's jobs report is giving Obama's media backers a chance to change the narrative, and you'll be hearing throughout the day how this is "good news for the president" because unemployment has finally dipped below 8 percent to 7.8 percent, which is the lowest it's been in 44 months. This will be accompanied by their celebratory announcement of a statistic you've probably never even heard before, that of an increase of 873,000 in employment from the "household survey."
None of this represents anything good, but you have to understand what the numbers mean in order to recognize that. So let's go through it:
- The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that only 114,000 new jobs were added in September. That is slighly better than the 96,000 that were originally reported in August (later oddly revised to more than 140,000), but it is still terrible, and still well below what you need to even keep up with population growth.
- The household survey includes people who took part-time jobs, which is why it says there are 456,000 fewer "unemployed" people, because you are not unemployed if you work at McDonald's. They are still undermployed, however, for purposes of being counted in the U6 unemployment number, which is why that figure remains unchanged at 14.7 percent.
- The fact that 7.8 percent is the lowest we've seen U4 in 44 months only demonstrates how horrible the past 44 months have been. During the Bush Administration, U4 stayed around 5 percent from the end of his first-term recession until the financial market meltdown in 2008. The recession has been over since 2009 but unemployment has remained at or above 8 percent ever since. A slight drop now to 7.8 percent is mere statistical noise, especially with U6 remaining unchanged.
 

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
obama-blame-bush-child.jpg

... did I hear something?

I do believe these #'s are in O's left hand, but the truth (GDP #'s) are in his right ...

Without a rise in GDP you can have no true job growth. Is this not a fact of reality.

Don't look to the stock market either, because those numbers do not account for O & Bernaky's money printing over the past four years. Anyone care to float that equation so that I can do the math here ;)
 

Fungus Gnat

Well-Known Member
This morning's jobs report is giving Obama's media backers a chance to change the narrative, and you'll be hearing throughout the day how this is "good news for the president" because unemployment has finally dipped below 8 percent to 7.8 percent, which is the lowest it's been in 44 months. This will be accompanied by their celebratory announcement of a statistic you've probably never even heard before, that of an increase of 873,000 in employment from the "household survey."
None of this represents anything good, but you have to understand what the numbers mean in order to recognize that. So let's go through it:
- The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that only 114,000 new jobs were added in September. That is slighly better than the 96,000 that were originally reported in August (later oddly revised to more than 140,000), but it is still terrible, and still well below what you need to even keep up with population growth.
- The household survey includes people who took part-time jobs, which is why it says there are 456,000 fewer "unemployed" people, because you are not unemployed if you work at McDonald's. They are still undermployed, however, for purposes of being counted in the U6 unemployment number, which is why that figure remains unchanged at 14.7 percent.
- The fact that 7.8 percent is the lowest we've seen U4 in 44 months only demonstrates how horrible the past 44 months have been. During the Bush Administration, U4 stayed around 5 percent from the end of his first-term recession until the financial market meltdown in 2008. The recession has been over since 2009 but unemployment has remained at or above 8 percent ever since. A slight drop now to 7.8 percent is mere statistical noise, especially with U6 remaining unchanged.
Thanks for posting the talking points memo that has been uploaded to your brain.
 

beenthere

New Member
any proof..or are you just wishing for the failure of America so Obama is voted out of office.
I'm always told the burden of proof lies on the party making the claim, got some?

No one is wishing for America to fail my friend, but if the unemployment numbers are somehow skewed, wouldn't you want to know the truth? If they are wrong then this is a false security and the economy will continue on the wrong track and nobody wants that, agree?
 

Fungus Gnat

Well-Known Member
I'm always told the burden of proof lies on the party making the claim, got some?

No one is wishing for America to fail my friend, but if the unemployment numbers are somehow skewed, wouldn't you want to know the truth? If they are wrong then this is a false security and the economy will continue on the wrong track and nobody wants that, agree?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49305192

even gallup has it at 7.9%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157871/unadjusted-unemployment-rate-september.aspx
 
Top