216,000 jobs created in February

[kwc57]

Ahhhh, another syphon thread. Don't you ever get dizzy?

View attachment 17735

 

[Dr.House]

Gallup is unimpressed....

U.S. Unemployment Up in February

Gallup is also not particularly accurate and cannot seasonally adjust.

Why "seasonally adjust" when the official calculation used to do so is unknown?

People are perfectly able to recognize the seasonal swings without unknown "adjustments" being made to the numbers...

 

[pinqy]

[You do realize that 300-400k people stop looking for work many months right?

which has nothing to do with net change of Employment. How would it? Show me that math.

They are counted as jobs created in the sense that it brings the UE rate down.

Where are you getting that idea? There are 3 categories in the Labor Force stats: Employed, Unemployed, and Not in the Labor Force. People not trying to work are Not in the Labor Force and are certainly not part of the Jobs numbers, which is a completely separate surevey in any case.


"Jobs created" refers to either the ADP Employment numbers or the BLS Current Employment Survey. Both are non-farm payroll numbers (agriculture and self-employed are excluded, ADP also excludes government). Neither is used at all for Unemployment reckoning. Both are NET changes in employment. Employers are asked "How many employees did you have for the pay period that contained Jan 12th" and that number is recorded. In February, they're asked again for Feb 12th. If the number is positive, that is a net gain in employment ("jobs created") if it is negative, it is a net loss ("jobs lost")

A completely separate survey is done of households. People are asked:
"Last week, did you do any work for pay?" If yes (or absent due to vacation, weather, temp illness, etc) they are Employed.

If no, they are asked: "Have you done anything to find work during the last 4 weeks" and
"Last week, could you have started a job if one had been offered?" If both are yes, the person is Unemployed.

If either of those are "no" they are "Not in the Labor Force."

Employed and Unemployed are totalled to get the Labor Force, and the UE rate is calculated as Unemployed/Labor Force.

So, yes, a large enough number going from Unemployed to Not in the Labor Force can lower the UE rate (and enough going from Not in the Labor Force to Unemployed can raise it), but that's definitiley not adding or padding Employement or jobs.

 

[eots]

Hiring in the private sector picked up in February, according to a report released Wednesday by payroll processor ADP.
Private employers added 216,000 jobs in the month, ADP said, roughly in line with forecasts for 218,000 jobs gained.

Small businesses -- those with fewer than 50 employees -- made up half of the job gains in February, hiring 108,000 people.

A rise in manufacturing jobs was particularly encouraging. Factories added 21,000 jobs.

ADP Says U.S. Added 216,000 Jobs in February - Bloomberg

Private firms added 216,000 jobs in February, study says - latimes.com

ADP: Private sector adds 216,000 jobs in February - Mar. 7, 2012

With Democrats in the White House, the average annual job creation for the last 48 years was just a hair under 2.2 million additional jobs.
Under Republican presidents, half of that, 1.1 million jobs. GDP growth under Democrats, 3.2%. Under Republicans, 2.1%.
Now here it gets fun: Average annual S&P 500 growth rate under Democrats, 10.8%. Under Republicans, 2.3%.
All of this is public knowledge, you can get these results from Bloomberg, BLS and BEI. You can't argue with data. You can spin as much as you want, BS to the high heavens, but so many critical indices show again and again (I didn't even bring up debt to GDP performance) to very heavily favor Democratic presidents. So either there is an ideological economic advantage to Democratic policies, or Republicans have made terrible presidents.

Or maybe a little of both. Either way, you can't argue facts with opinions alone, and win any logical argument.

how will the GOP try to spin this their way now?

and this cost how many trillions ?

 

[Avorysuds]

[You do realize that 300-400k people stop looking for work many months right?

which has nothing to do with net change of Employment. How would it? Show me that math.

They are counted as jobs created in the sense that it brings the UE rate down.

Where are you getting that idea? There are 3 categories in the Labor Force stats: Employed, Unemployed, and Not in the Labor Force. People not trying to work are Not in the Labor Force and are certainly not part of the Jobs numbers, which is a completely separate surevey in any case.


"Jobs created" refers to either the ADP Employment numbers or the BLS Current Employment Survey. Both are non-farm payroll numbers (agriculture and self-employed are excluded, ADP also excludes government). Neither is used at all for Unemployment reckoning. Both are NET changes in employment. Employers are asked "How many employees did you have for the pay period that contained Jan 12th" and that number is recorded. In February, they're asked again for Feb 12th. If the number is positive, that is a net gain in employment ("jobs created") if it is negative, it is a net loss ("jobs lost")

A completely separate survey is done of households. People are asked:
"Last week, did you do any work for pay?" If yes (or absent due to vacation, weather, temp illness, etc) they are Employed.

If no, they are asked: "Have you done anything to find work during the last 4 weeks" and
"Last week, could you have started a job if one had been offered?" If both are yes, the person is Unemployed.

If either of those are "no" they are "Not in the Labor Force."

Employed and Unemployed are totalled to get the Labor Force, and the UE rate is calculated as Unemployed/Labor Force.

So, yes, a large enough number going from Unemployed to Not in the Labor Force can lower the UE rate (and enough going from Not in the Labor Force to Unemployed can raise it), but that's definitiley not adding or padding Employement or jobs.

LOLz... Just give up man, we have gone over this now for years.

 

[pinqy]

Gallup is unimpressed....

U.S. Unemployment Up in February

Gallup is also not particularly accurate and cannot seasonally adjust.

Why "seasonally adjust" when the official calculation used to do so is unknown?

It's not unknown, it's very well documented: X-12-ARIMA
Or specifically for the Current Employment Survey: Seasonal Adjustment Files and Documentation

People are perfectly able to recognize the seasonal swings without unknown "adjustments" being made to the numbers...

No, they're not. You can make a guess, and approximation, but without doing the real math you can't really know if the change is higher or lower than the normal change, and without seasonal adjustment judging month to month changes is a lot harder. For annual averages and for comparing the same month in different years, you're better off looking at the unadjusted numbers, but otherwise, it's too hard to tell.

Example: Nov to Dec for the following years had the following unadjusted changes. How much of each year was a seasonal swing?
2007: -330
2008: -275
2009: -846
2010: -542
2011: -310

 

[pinqy]

LOLz... Just give up man, we have gone over this now for years.

And the fact that you still don't understand it means either I'm a very bad teacher, or you're unusually dense.

 

[Avorysuds]

LOLz... Just give up man, we have gone over this now for years.

And the fact that you still don't understand it means either I'm a very bad teacher, or you're unusually dense.

You're right, the UE just goes down %1 with 80k jobs created because you know how it works and I don't.

 

[Syphon]

Hiring in the private sector picked up in February, according to a report released Wednesday by payroll processor ADP.
Private employers added 216,000 jobs in the month, ADP said, roughly in line with forecasts for 218,000 jobs gained.

Small businesses -- those with fewer than 50 employees -- made up half of the job gains in February, hiring 108,000 people.

A rise in manufacturing jobs was particularly encouraging. Factories added 21,000 jobs.

ADP Says U.S. Added 216,000 Jobs in February - Bloomberg

Private firms added 216,000 jobs in February, study says - latimes.com

ADP: Private sector adds 216,000 jobs in February - Mar. 7, 2012

With Democrats in the White House, the average annual job creation for the last 48 years was just a hair under 2.2 million additional jobs.
Under Republican presidents, half of that, 1.1 million jobs. GDP growth under Democrats, 3.2%. Under Republicans, 2.1%.
Now here it gets fun: Average annual S&P 500 growth rate under Democrats, 10.8%. Under Republicans, 2.3%.
All of this is public knowledge, you can get these results from Bloomberg, BLS and BEI. You can't argue with data. You can spin as much as you want, BS to the high heavens, but so many critical indices show again and again (I didn't even bring up debt to GDP performance) to very heavily favor Democratic presidents. So either there is an ideological economic advantage to Democratic policies, or Republicans have made terrible presidents.

Or maybe a little of both. Either way, you can't argue facts with opinions alone, and win any logical argument.

how will the GOP try to spin this their way now?

and this cost how many trillions ?

and that matters why?

 

[Avorysuds]

Hiring in the private sector picked up in February, according to a report released Wednesday by payroll processor ADP.
Private employers added 216,000 jobs in the month, ADP said, roughly in line with forecasts for 218,000 jobs gained.

Small businesses -- those with fewer than 50 employees -- made up half of the job gains in February, hiring 108,000 people.

A rise in manufacturing jobs was particularly encouraging. Factories added 21,000 jobs.

ADP Says U.S. Added 216,000 Jobs in February - Bloomberg

Private firms added 216,000 jobs in February, study says - latimes.com

ADP: Private sector adds 216,000 jobs in February - Mar. 7, 2012

With Democrats in the White House, the average annual job creation for the last 48 years was just a hair under 2.2 million additional jobs.
Under Republican presidents, half of that, 1.1 million jobs. GDP growth under Democrats, 3.2%. Under Republicans, 2.1%.
Now here it gets fun: Average annual S&P 500 growth rate under Democrats, 10.8%. Under Republicans, 2.3%.
All of this is public knowledge, you can get these results from Bloomberg, BLS and BEI. You can't argue with data. You can spin as much as you want, BS to the high heavens, but so many critical indices show again and again (I didn't even bring up debt to GDP performance) to very heavily favor Democratic presidents. So either there is an ideological economic advantage to Democratic policies, or Republicans have made terrible presidents.

Or maybe a little of both. Either way, you can't argue facts with opinions alone, and win any logical argument.

how will the GOP try to spin this their way now?

and this cost how many trillions ?

and that matters why?

Wow...

 

[Avorysuds]

For some peopel it really does have to be a full 100% collpase before they can understand you can't buy your way out of this mess.

 

[Avorysuds]

Vote for me everyone!!! I will spend 100 Trillion dollars making shit look good! The next President and Generation can figure out what to do with the debt!

 

[pinqy]

LOLz... Just give up man, we have gone over this now for years.

And the fact that you still don't understand it means either I'm a very bad teacher, or you're unusually dense.

You're right, the UE just goes down %1 with 80k jobs created because you know how it works and I don't.

Now, it's that I understand how that can happen. UE rate going down is not always good. UE rate going up is not always bad (and I expect it to go up soon as people re-enter the labor force in greater numbers). There's a whole lot of nuance.

But if you can't grasp that there are THREE categories of population, then of course it won't make sense. If you can't understand that measuring Jobs and measuring Unemployment aren't directly related, of course it won't make sense.

 

[grunt11b]

They have real meaning. The rich do very well under the GOP, the rest of us, less well. If you want a robust economy that raises all boats, vote Democrat.

If the democrats would stop passing job killing legislation the rich AND everybody else would do well under them. Stop with the class warfare shit already, you guys pulled the trigger on that gem too early and now it has no bearing whatsoever on anything. You should have waited until right about now to start it up, it might have had an actual effect in the elections.

 

[Syphon]

Bush and his Reps were Progressive liberals... They grew Government at every turn, they lost big time in the elections for it. Then Dems came into power claiming they would stop Bush, that they would not allow the spending and wars annnnnnnd BAM, Dems helped Bush spend even more because they knew most people are to stupid to realize congress plays a role in things meaning a bad economy would help Dems in 2008.

Now, the issue of course is that Reps won back the house and a fair amount of the Senate because Dems with a Dem President just kept spending as well as keeping or expanding every single Bush policy.

So at best the Reps that were re-elected were doing the bidding of the people. And as I said before, how can Dems blame Reps for obstructing EVERYTHING but then claim it was their policies (that were obstructed lol) that saved us? You want it both ways, because you're an inferior hack.

I blame Bush and the Reps because their policy is/was bad. I blame Dems because their policy is the same as Bush/Reps.... Bad. You see it as Dems good Reps evil, you're small minded and a fool.

We will enter another recession, I hope Obama is in office, it will be fun watching you spin so fast that you pass out from your own stupidity.

Also Rand Paul and 6 others in the Senate put up a balanced budget, but Obama was in favor of a budget that got us downgraded and pushed for it.... Then you blame Reps, as always.

Rand Paul put forth a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, not an acutal balanced budget.

and youre analysis of me is quite off. im actually an independent although i lean Dem. the reason i lean towards the Dems is that GOP policy does not favor the middle class. Since GWB took office the GOP mantra of Reagans low taxes and low regulation will spur economic success has been in place. Now Clinton did sign the repeal of Glass Steagall, but it was put forth by a GOP congress. This was a terrible idea and was one of several factors that led to the financial collapse. Medicare Part D was a good idea, but too bad no one decided to pay for it. The Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 were terrible ideas since they were not paid for either. But then again the GOP believes you dont have to pay for tax cuts with a decrease in spending. Then we have the mismanaged wars. once we decided to go to war with Iraq the GWB administration did not draw up an effective plan for after the initial invasion. They did not plan to fight a guerrilla warfare, IED, suicide bomber type of fight. they also did not have a plan for installing a working democracy. what did this lead to, a country in ruin. we didnt raise taxes or issue war bonds to pay for the war either. it was paid for with borrowed money from China mostly. Medicare D, the tax cuts and the wars and the biggest drivers of our current deficits and debt. then we can move on to how the rest of our allies viewed us. the world view of america declined while GWB was in the oval office. countries did not want to support US causes and we were on basically a go it alone mission. Britain provided some support but the US took the brunt of the cost of the wars as well as the responsibility to try and stabilize the middle east. all of this cost money and lives. much of it unneeded.

now lets look at the current GOP candidates.

Newt promises an unrealistic $2.50 gas, yet doesnt tell anyone how hes gonna change the price of a commodity.
Ron Paul wants to go back to the gold standard and close every foreign base across the world which would save money, but you would increase unemployment among military families due to reductions.
Santorum wants to use his religion to dictate policy. i.e. prayer in school, no more evolution only creationism, outlaw contraception, repeal row v. wade.
Romney can not present a consistent message on anything. He is for the mass mandate, but against the fed mandate. he was for roe v. wade, now hes against roe v. wade. his job creation record in mass was terrible. he said GM should have gone bankrupt and got no government aid.

all the GOP candidates want to bomb Iran, and said Syria. but apparently helping Libya was a terrible idea. They think we can drill out way to energy independence, when in reality we can not. the call climate change a myth, making the rest of the world mock and laugh at our inability to analyze scientific data and come to the same conclusions they have. they are for ending the dept of education, energy and the EPA. because that will help us close the education gap, become less dependent on oil and have clean air and water. they want to dismantle Medicare and end Social Security as we know it and make it a private enterprise run by wall street.

the GOP held an extension of unemployment insurance benefits hostage over tax cuts for the wealthy.
the GOP walked away from a $4T grand bargain on deficit reduction and increasing the debt ceiling causing our credit to get downgraded.

many of the GOP ideas are actually closer to socialist ideas than anything the dems have done. fixing gas prices, unilaterally repealing the health care law, unilaterally overturn Roe v. Wade.

what good ideas has any of the current GOP candidates offered that would directly help the middle class and the poor? ole Mitt isnt even worried about the poor, the have a "safety net".

#1 Rand Paul's balanced budget = you fail. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vDNmE_M7E]03/17/11: Sen. Rand Paul Introduces Five-Year Balanced Budget Plan - YouTube[/ame]


#2 Ron Paul does not want to bomb Iran = you lied

#3 Ron Paul wants the powers of the Federal Government confined by the constitution, he is the furthest from socialist = you lied again.

#4 You still have not shown us 1 repeal of the evil Bush era policies that favor the rich and destroy the middle class that Obama did with his super majority in the House and Senate = you fail again.

I don’t care what way you “lean,” you’re a Dem through and through. You just lied on near every point you made, I proved you wrong even with video.

the Rand Paul budget is not a real balanced budget. it says it can do so in 5 years without touching entitlement. since 80% of the budget is SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense and Interest on the debt, his budget is a fantasy.

ill give you the Ron Paul one, although hes really not a republican, hes a libertarian.

Ron Paul has already shown that he disagrees with how the founders interpreted the constitution they wrote.
Ron Paul Says Founders Ignorant of Constitution - Paul J. O'Rourke - Open Salon
In 1798 the 5th Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen," a healthcare plan for privately employed merchant marine sailors. There's no substantial difference between that act and the one that established Medicare -- both being federally administered, payroll tax funded, single payer healthcare insurance plans covering a certain group of citizens.
Then, as now, and as in 1965 when Medicare became law, there was no direct authority in the Constitution to do so. Those acts were passed under the "General Welfare" clause in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
Congressman Paul is arguing with Founding Fathers Adams, Jefferson and (ironically, as we'll see) Madison, and many other presidents who administered it without any constitutional objection. It was the type of insurance plan Paul claims -- with hand waving and expression of true amazement -- is not authorized by the Constitution in any way and by art 1, sec 8 specifically.

Id believe the founders over Paul any day.

your last comment is a loaded question. Obama and the dems tried to let the Bush Tax cuts expire, but the GOP held them hostage over the extension of unemployment benefits. The dems technically has a super majority for 134 days.

The Democrats’ 134-Day Supermajority | PoliPundit.com

this was not 2 years as the right claims. knowing how slow government works, the only thing they gone done was the health care law.

maybe you should do a little more research and find out what really happened instead of what you thought happened.

i see youre a big Ron Paul fan, but you also failed to even address any of the other candidates and how terrible they are. Ron Paul is also in last place in the GOP primary, so he wont be getting the nomination anyways.

 

[chikenwing]

As a small business owner,I can tell you with absolute certainty,that when a under 50 employer company hires its has little to do with who is in the white house,bragging on about how great things are because we have a Dem in the WH is a laughable dream. Wipe the brown stuff of your face its smells.

People want to be successful regardless what your Gov. does.

 

[kwc57]

For some peopel it really does have to be a full 100% collpase before they can understand you can't buy your way out of this mess.

I'm not sure they would even understand it then. They'd just riot and ask where all their free stuff was.

View attachment 17736

 

[eots]

Hiring in the private sector picked up in February, according to a report released Wednesday by payroll processor ADP.
Private employers added 216,000 jobs in the month, ADP said, roughly in line with forecasts for 218,000 jobs gained.

Small businesses -- those with fewer than 50 employees -- made up half of the job gains in February, hiring 108,000 people.

A rise in manufacturing jobs was particularly encouraging. Factories added 21,000 jobs.

ADP Says U.S. Added 216,000 Jobs in February - Bloomberg

Private firms added 216,000 jobs in February, study says - latimes.com

ADP: Private sector adds 216,000 jobs in February - Mar. 7, 2012

With Democrats in the White House, the average annual job creation for the last 48 years was just a hair under 2.2 million additional jobs.
Under Republican presidents, half of that, 1.1 million jobs. GDP growth under Democrats, 3.2%. Under Republicans, 2.1%.
Now here it gets fun: Average annual S&P 500 growth rate under Democrats, 10.8%. Under Republicans, 2.3%.
All of this is public knowledge, you can get these results from Bloomberg, BLS and BEI. You can't argue with data. You can spin as much as you want, BS to the high heavens, but so many critical indices show again and again (I didn't even bring up debt to GDP performance) to very heavily favor Democratic presidents. So either there is an ideological economic advantage to Democratic policies, or Republicans have made terrible presidents.

Or maybe a little of both. Either way, you can't argue facts with opinions alone, and win any logical argument.

how will the GOP try to spin this their way now?

and this cost how many trillions ?

and that matters why?

lol...oh it doesn't matter at all.. after all its free money !

 

[The T]

not one GOP spin....... quite disappointing

How many were dropped from the roles again?

I just want the numbers to have some real meaning.

How many jobs don't exist any longer?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Well, it sure doesn't include those who are STILL unemployed yet are dropped out of the count.

It's not an unemployment report. It's a report on the numbers of jobs created over the month.

We'll see. Of course, with ALL those who are involuntarily unemployed not being counted, I'm not sure how much the BLS numbers will mean.

Take a look at the BLS report for January. They go into depth discussing total jobs gained and lost in various fields, and overall. They talk briefly about the unemployment picture, but the main focus is to assess how many people are on someone's payroll somewhere out there.