EDITORIAL: Obama’s bogus jobs data

[Truthseeker420]

wouldn't be the same bogus data neonuts used to prop up Reagan and Bush?

 

[Trajan]

So its dishonest of the media to report the same number they have always reported, in good time and bad, whether republican or democrat, because Obama is in office.
This is the number they have ALWAYS used, no matter what. To change it now, would be dishonest.

read my comment again, especially this;

obama is the benefactor of the same 'system' others have used, its no different, but the highlighting the media employs is dishonest


I know they have used the same method, I said highlighted.....I posted on another therad here, several sources from the media ala 2004 and 2005 already where in the news was, in a 6% and sub 6% unemployment rate, they were pounding bush for the 'bad' numbers etc.....Krugman himself was highlighting; 'they don't count discouraged workers do they'? remarks that are being made now, ONLY this is obama and they aren't nearly as outraged, are they? That, is dishonest.

see my point?

There are many reasons why people drop out of the labor market and there is no way you can tell why. First, the number of retirees are on the rise with baby boomers reaching retirement age. People have delayed retirement waiting for a market recover which is happening. Also people are retiring earlier. Kids are staying in school longer and many that are displaced are going back to school. Probably one the biggest reasons people have dropped out of labor market is that employers have become much more picky as to who they hire. This is due to oversupply of workers over the last three years. As demand for workers continues to rise these workers will move back into the labor market.

why are you answering a question I didn't ask? or remark upon exactly?

 

[Sallow]

Yes-sir-ree bob. When Bush's low UE numbers were being "Atta boy'ed" despite massive layoffs all over the place..they were "real".

But now? INVESTIGATE!

What's changed?

 

[Trajan]

links in article at site.

SNIP:

Congress should investigate cooked employment books


By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

-

The Washington Times

Friday, February 3, 2012


The White House hyped the news Friday that January payrolls had risen by 243,000. The hitch is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) also dropped 1.2 million from the calculated workforce. Somehow this net loss of a million workers in a single month was transformed into an improvement in the unemployment rate. As the old saying goes, figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.

“Job growth was widespread,” the BLS reported, but most Americans sense that something isn’t quite right with the numbers. The most important change was the deep decline in the workforce. While the overall population jumped an 1.6 million in January, the workforce declined a record-setting 1.2 million. This figure represents those who out of sheer frustration or for other reasons have dropped out of what the government defines as the active labor pool. They are worse than simply unemployed; they are both jobless and hopeless.

The good news for Obama administration statisticians is that these unfortunates don’t factor into the official unemployment rate, which only counts those thought to be looking for work. So while five people drop out of the system in despair for every new job created, the official unemployment rate declines and the White House enjoys a good news day.

read it all here.
EDITORIAL: Obama's bogus jobs data - Washington Times

There is nothing bogus about the data. The decrease in the total size of the work has no effect on the employment rate because only those actively seeking work are counted. The BLS made no change in method of calculation or the data included.

The important point to remember is that 243,000 more people have jobs this month than last month. Almost ever sectors added jobs except the government who saw a lose in jobs.

As demand begins to dominate the job market, the workforce will expand as the long term unemployed and marginal workers enter the workforce seeking jobs and thus putting upward pressure on the unemployment rate. The opponents of the administration will then site sluggest unemployment rate and ignore the expansion of the workforce. This is the way it always works.

The important thing is number of new jobs. 243,000 new jobs is very good regardless of the change in the size of the workforce.

I am sorry, but I find your value ala 'very good' very funny.

And I think you know why flopper.

 

[Trajan]

Yes-sir-ree bob. When Bush's low UE numbers were being "Atta boy'ed" despite massive layoffs all over the place..they were "real".

But now? INVESTIGATE!

What's changed?

what R U babbling about now?

you mean like they investigated in 2004 and 2005? I posted several links to 2004 and 05 articles in one of the other 25 threads here on same, ala the NY Times and the usual Dem water carriers beating up on Bush becasue the economy was and I quote "lagging for jobs"...with an unemployment rate of......5.8%..... see how that works?

now that shit has really hit the fan everyone is suppsoed to stfu and get with it, like MSM zombies, you especially, you sit there, the Obama drool running down your chin as your ringmasters have told you this is the new norm.

Go- now- bow- pray- then go forth and babble mightily. oh and take your canteen of kool aid for the sunday shows..........

 

[Flopper]

links in article at site.

SNIP:

Congress should investigate cooked employment books


By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

-

The Washington Times

Friday, February 3, 2012


The White House hyped the news Friday that January payrolls had risen by 243,000. The hitch is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) also dropped 1.2 million from the calculated workforce. Somehow this net loss of a million workers in a single month was transformed into an improvement in the unemployment rate. As the old saying goes, figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.

“Job growth was widespread,” the BLS reported, but most Americans sense that something isn’t quite right with the numbers. The most important change was the deep decline in the workforce. While the overall population jumped an 1.6 million in January, the workforce declined a record-setting 1.2 million. This figure represents those who out of sheer frustration or for other reasons have dropped out of what the government defines as the active labor pool. They are worse than simply unemployed; they are both jobless and hopeless.

The good news for Obama administration statisticians is that these unfortunates don’t factor into the official unemployment rate, which only counts those thought to be looking for work. So while five people drop out of the system in despair for every new job created, the official unemployment rate declines and the White House enjoys a good news day.

read it all here.
EDITORIAL: Obama's bogus jobs data - Washington Times

There is nothing bogus about the data. The decrease in the total size of the work has no effect on the employment rate because only those actively seeking work are counted. The BLS made no change in method of calculation or the data included.

The important point to remember is that 243,000 more people have jobs this month than last month. Almost ever sectors added jobs except the government who saw a lose in jobs.

As demand begins to dominate the job market, the workforce will expand as the long term unemployed and marginal workers enter the workforce seeking jobs and thus putting upward pressure on the unemployment rate. The opponents of the administration will then site sluggest unemployment rate and ignore the expansion of the workforce. This is the way it always works.

The important thing is number of new jobs. 243,000 new jobs is very good regardless of the change in the size of the workforce.

I am sorry, but I find your value ala 'very good' very funny.

And I think you know why flopper.

Really. The average number of jobs created per month under:
Reagan -31,000
Clinton - 239,000
Bush - 77,0000

So, yes I think 253,000 is pretty damn good. It's probably not the highest number of jobs created in a single month but it beats the average over the last 30 years and is certainly better than what we have seen under either Obama or Bush.


Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[expat_panama]

...The average number of jobs created per month under:
Reagan -31,000
Clinton - 239,000
Bush - 77,0000
...

That may or may not be what the WSJ says, but here's what the BLS and the Fed says:

Civilian Employment (CE16OV), Monthly, Seasonally Adjusted
FRED Graph Observations
Federal Reserve Economic Data
Link: Federal Reserve Economic Data - FRED - St. Louis Fed
Help: Help and FAQs - FRED - St. Louis Fed
Economic Research Division
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

date level mo. change average/month
1981-01-01 _99,955 __ ______ _______
1989-01-01 116,708 96 16,753 174,510 Reagan
1993-01-01 119,075 48 _2,367 _49,313 GH Bush
2001-01-01 137,778 96 18,703 194,823 Clinton
2009-01-01 142,187 96 _4,409 _45,927 GW Bush
2012-01-01 141,637 37 __-550 -14,865 Obama​

Showing that Reagan did better than your post said he did.

We need to stop right here and remember the state does not create jobs, it's the people that create jobs. Next lets remember that the people create jobs only when people can use them, and another look at the BLS/Fed numbers shows GW Bush allowed free people make jobs for all that were there to be hired:

Civilian Employment-Population Ratio
1981-01-01 59.1
1989-01-01 62.9
1993-01-01 61.4
2001-01-01 64.4
2009-01-01 60.6
​

--and that shows GW Bush allowing everyone to create all the jobs they wanted.

.