Employers add 117,000 jobs in July

[pinqy]

I love how these idiots massage the UE numbers.

There were 139,296,000 people working in July, compared to 139,334,000 the month before, or a drop of 38,000. That's not job creation, unless you are a government bureaucrat with bad math skills

The "job creation" numbers are from a seperate survey, and that did go up 117,000

So how do these morons have the nerve to report that unemployment dropped?

Because it did. Both Employment and Unemployment, from the household survey, went down.

Using a magic wand, and a trusty eraser- they simply stop counting “discouraged workers,” or those who were unemployed but not out looking for work.

Not quite. First, discouraged are those who want a job, are available to work, looked for a job in the last 12 months but not the last 4 weeks and the reason for not looking is that they don't believe they would find any. And it's not that "they simply stop counting," discouraged....they never count discouraged. The survey is conducted, the numbers are calculated, there's no choice to count or not count.

So the drop in the unemployment rate is pure bunk—stick all those people back in the workforce and you wipe out the job creation and the drop in unemployment in less than a second.

The U-4 measure includes the discouraged. It stayed the same from June to July. And again, these are household survey numbers and have nothing to do with job creation. Oh, and the broader measures of U-5 and U-6 dropped.

 

[mudwhistle]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp-oqAQl6Ic]‪Obama's 'Pivot' To Jobs The Deja Vu Reel‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[8537]

I do love that DC has managed to brainwash everyone into calling the economic collapse into a "recovery" despite at not a single point did things get better... Recovery now means "If things get worse slower under Obama it's good news and counts as a recovery."

I wonder how many people wish their health were described as the Obama Recovery... I'm definitely dying, just a bit slower... So I call it a recovery to make myself feel better... LOL.

Things did get better - and they still are. Just not at the pace folks would hope. income is now higher than when the recession began, several percentage points higher than the bottom of the contraction.

It's a tepid expansion, but it's an expansion.

Just liek the Great Depression was actually a period of high growth, so too what we're experiencing now is a Golden Age of Wealth.

You really are that stupid. There is no expansion. GDP growth is essentially zero.

You're too much of a racist hack to see reality with a black man in charge:

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

 

[Full-Auto]

Just wait until the budget cuts go into affect. Once our gov't starts cutting a few hundred billion dollars of spending from the budget, it's going to cause a pretty good uptick in the number of people who will by filing unemployment claims for the first time.

Do you think conservatives will admit that the budget cuts they pushed for during an economic downturn was the reason why unemployment went up? You don't have to answer that. It was a rhetorical question.

A trillion in budget cuts will have a big impact on jobs. Of course Repubs don't care, it is part of the Obama must fail strategy

And your strategy is blame everything on the minority in the Republicans House... Even when you have the Senate/House and White house you still blame the minority who had no power at all.

Who held the debt ceiling hostage RW? Come on, you know you wana say it... Go ahead say it.... Here is a hint of what you don't say. You never Say it was the Senate that voted down bills, you never say it was Obama who threatened to not pass bills... You never say it was the Senate that voted 100% no on Obama’s budget... No, you say it is all the Minority in the house, the _ _ _ (space) _ _ _ __'s fault.

I think leadership was taken out of the dem playbook. Insert victim hood and then proceed.

 

[8537]

We are realists. We recall that the democrats took a majority in 2006....and things started to go south after that.

Absolutely, positively false.

The Democrats took congress in Jan 2007, six months into a decline in the housing market. Can you explain how a Jan 2007 taking of congress popped a housing bubble six months earlier?

That's not a realist.

 

[theHawk]

When is rightwinger going to start a new thread: "More GOOD economic news: US downgraded from AAA status!"

 

[Full-Auto]

We are realists. We recall that the democrats took a majority in 2006....and things started to go south after that.

Absolutely, positively false.

The Democrats took congress in Jan 2007, six months into a decline in the housing market. Can you explain how a Jan 2007 taking of congress popped a housing bubble six months earlier?

That's not a realist.

I was selling homes at the time. I didnt see any decrease until late 09.

But thanks for your input none the less.

 

[theHawk]

We are realists. We recall that the democrats took a majority in 2006....and things started to go south after that.

Absolutely, positively false.

The Democrats took congress in Jan 2007, six months into a decline in the housing market. Can you explain how a Jan 2007 taking of congress popped a housing bubble six months earlier?

That's not a realist.

I was selling homes at the time. I didnt see any decrease until late 09.

But thanks for your input none the less.

The housing bubble was a result of federal government forcing banks to give out bad loans so "everyone could have their own house". But those policies were decades old.

 

[Stephanie]

Lets be REAL folks.

If this puny number had been UNDER Bush, you wouldn't be seeing these types of threads or even the media wouldn't be seeing it, AS GOOD NEWS.

Just more smoke blowing up our asses to try and give the Obama ANYTHING, something..

ain't working though...tsk tsk...look out 2012

 

[Full-Auto]

Absolutely, positively false.

The Democrats took congress in Jan 2007, six months into a decline in the housing market. Can you explain how a Jan 2007 taking of congress popped a housing bubble six months earlier?

That's not a realist.

I was selling homes at the time. I didnt see any decrease until late 09.

But thanks for your input none the less.

The housing bubble was a result of federal government forcing banks to give out bad loans so "everyone could have their own house". But those policies were decades old.

This I know well. I kept my homes in the 250k range and still wondered how a few could afford them.

 

[Full-Auto]

Lets be REAL folks.

If this puny number had been UNDER Bush, you wouldn't be seeing these types of threads or even the media wouldn't be seeing it, AS GOOD NEWS.

Just more smoke blowing up our asses to try and give the Obama ANYTHING, something..

ain't working though...tsk tsk...look out 2012

As a famous actor from Hogans Heros and Family Fued said.

SURVEY SAYS!!!

 

[Stephanie]

Lets be REAL folks.

If this puny number had been UNDER Bush, you wouldn't be seeing these types of threads or even the media wouldn't be seeing it, AS GOOD NEWS.

Just more smoke blowing up our asses to try and give the Obama ANYTHING, something..

ain't working though...tsk tsk...look out 2012

As a famous actor from Hogans Heros and Family Fued said.

SURVEY SAYS!!!

 

[theHawk]

Lets be REAL folks.

If this puny number had been UNDER Bush, you wouldn't be seeing these types of threads or even the media wouldn't be seeing it, AS GOOD NEWS.

Just more smoke blowing up our asses to try and give the Obama ANYTHING, something..

ain't working though...tsk tsk...look out 2012

LOL, back when Bush had 5% unemployment the libs were complaining about it.

If the Hussein manages to get 8% they'll be claiming he should get re-elected.

 

[JoeB131]

Employers add 117,000 jobs in July, unemployment rate drops - USATODAY.com

with respect
these are the numbers that will get BHO re-elected?

Don't spoil it for Right-Winger.. This is the closest to "good" news they've got.

 

[mudwhistle]

I wonder if Obama can buy another Nobel Peace prize.....after S&P downgraded his new idea of government he's gonna need something big. Leadership through crisis after crisis isn't playing out well in the real world.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A change from 9.2 to 9.1% is pretty insignificant. It most likely reflects the number of people who have stopped looking for jobs.

I was waiting for the headline:

Unemployment plummets .1%

but I guess the idiots in the libby media er finally figuring out that that shit doesn't fool anyone anymore.

 

[pinqy]

If they've given up using employment agencies so they drop off the stats.

There's no "dropping off" as there's no list. The sample rotates and changes 1/4 of the sample every month (respondents are in for 4 months, out for 8, back in for 4). And there's no requirement to use an employment agency:

Only active methods—which have the potential to result in a job offer without further action on the part of the jobseeker—qualify as job search. Examples include going to an employer
directly or to a public or private employment agency, seeking assistance from friends or relatives, placing or answering ads, or using some other active method. Examples of the
“other” category include being on a union or professional register, obtaining assistance from a community organization, or waiting at a designated labor pickup point.

And those on temporary layoff don't have to look for work to be considered unemployed. Source: BLS tech information[/quote]

The labor force partipation rate is the lowest since July of 84, so that is the only way the unemployment rate went down.

Wrong. Employment and Unemployment both went down. That means some people lost/left their job and haven't looked for one (yet), and others stopped looking for work for any number of reasons including medical, going back to school, child care issues, transportation issues etc. Not everyone who stops looking is "giving up."

The problem is this Administration tailors their numbers to suit their purposes.

How? Please describe the process as to how the numbers are collected, compiled, and disseminated and what role the Administration plays.

 

[KissMy]

Obamacrats should have focused on recovery & job creation instead
of that job killing healthcare plan when he first got into office.

CBO Says ObamaCare Will Kill 800,000 Jobs​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jskjci1ZL9Q]CBO Admits Health Care Law Will Kill 800,000 Jobs[/ame]

 

[Zander]

I love how these idiots massage the UE numbers.

There were 139,296,000 people working in July, compared to 139,334,000 the month before, or a drop of 38,000. That's not job creation, unless you are a government bureaucrat with bad math skills

The "job creation" numbers are from a seperate survey, and that did go up 117,000

So how do these morons have the nerve to report that unemployment dropped?

Because it did. Both Employment and Unemployment, from the household survey, went down.

Using a magic wand, and a trusty eraser- they simply stop counting “discouraged workers,” or those who were unemployed but not out looking for work.

Not quite. First, discouraged are those who want a job, are available to work, looked for a job in the last 12 months but not the last 4 weeks and the reason for not looking is that they don't believe they would find any. And it's not that "they simply stop counting," discouraged....they never count discouraged. The survey is conducted, the numbers are calculated, there's no choice to count or not count.

So the drop in the unemployment rate is pure bunk—stick all those people back in the workforce and you wipe out the job creation and the drop in unemployment in less than a second.

The U-4 measure includes the discouraged. It stayed the same from June to July. And again, these are household survey numbers and have nothing to do with job creation. Oh, and the broader measures of U-5 and U-6 dropped.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. I hope it is cold and sweet.

We have a higher population of working age people, and less of them are working this month than last month. Yet some bureaucrat in DC tells us that the unemployment rate decreased and we are supposed to suspend reality and take their word? Fortunately for the government, useful idiots will defend the indefensible.

PS- This is not a partisan issue- All administrations use the same bullshit methods for determining unemployment rates - it's a bi-partisan way of bullshitting the populace.

 

[pinqy]

I love how these idiots massage the UE numbers.

There were 139,296,000 people working in July, compared to 139,334,000 the month before, or a drop of 38,000. That's not job creation, unless you are a government bureaucrat with bad math skills

The "job creation" numbers are from a seperate survey, and that did go up 117,000


Because it did. Both Employment and Unemployment, from the household survey, went down.

Not quite. First, discouraged are those who want a job, are available to work, looked for a job in the last 12 months but not the last 4 weeks and the reason for not looking is that they don't believe they would find any. And it's not that "they simply stop counting," discouraged....they never count discouraged. The survey is conducted, the numbers are calculated, there's no choice to count or not count.

So the drop in the unemployment rate is pure bunk—stick all those people back in the workforce and you wipe out the job creation and the drop in unemployment in less than a second.

The U-4 measure includes the discouraged. It stayed the same from June to July. And again, these are household survey numbers and have nothing to do with job creation. Oh, and the broader measures of U-5 and U-6 dropped.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. I hope it is cold and sweet.

And what exactly have I said that's inaccurate or partisan or unthinking? Oh, nothing.

We have a higher population of working age people, and less of them are working this month than last month. Yet some bureaucrat in DC tells us that the unemployment rate decreased and we are supposed to suspend reality and take their word?

How is that suspension of reality? it's 4th grade math that if both the numerator and the denominator go down, then the percent can also go down. The population isn't even part of the equation....or maybe you didn't know that the unemployment rate is not a percent of the population. The Labor Force (denominator) went down, and the numerator went down a little more, so the percent is lower.

The emp-population percentage (currently 58.1%) has its uses, but it's limited. From Jul - Dec 1969 the employment-population ratio was also 58.1%. But the Unemployment rate averaged 3.6%. And that's because the emp-pop ratio only tells us what percent is working and not why people aren't. The 58.1% in 1969 was an all time high as more and more women entered the Labor Force.

So to look just at the employment population ratio doesn't tell us what the job market is actually like. There are many many reasons for fluctuations and changes in the percent working. With an older population of baby boomers now, the emp-pop ratio will not go back up to the levels it was in the 80's or 90's.