Truthseeker420
Gold Member
wouldn't be the same bogus data neonuts used to prop up Reagan and Bush?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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 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.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 dont lie, but liars can figure.
Job growth was widespread, the BLS reported, but most Americans sense that something isnt 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 dont 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
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.
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?
Really. The average number of jobs created per month under: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.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 dont lie, but liars can figure.
Job growth was widespread, the BLS reported, but most Americans sense that something isnt 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 dont 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
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.
That may or may not be what the WSJ says, but here's what the BLS and the Fed says:...The average number of jobs created per month under:
Reagan -31,000
Clinton - 239,000
Bush - 77,0000
...