Gallup Finds Unemployment Rises For Fourth Week In A Row, Cautions On BLS Data

[NYcarbineer]

When the last UE numbers came out, virtually every news outlet I saw included the reporting of the number of people who had given up looking for work as a partial explanation for the drop.

Now why would they do that if they're all in the tank for the Obama administration?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nothing at all.
Congress did not cause the recession.

I suggest you read up a little on economics and then re-join the debate.

FYI....the recession was not the problem. We have had many a recession over the years. They suck. But they are an essential part of an economy.

Once again, why are you saying that to me instead of the other poster that BLAMED Congress for the recession?

Doesn't to much congressional over sight hinder the private sector by slowing it down with to many regulations by not making it profitable to keep working?

BUMP just in case you missed it.

 

[daveman]

Let's review the facts:

editec said:

the government has been telling us essantially the same thing for quite some time.

You replied:

No they havent. They are making the people find that out on their own.
Yes, they dont hide that information...they simply dont announce it.


YOU are wrong. The BLS, which is part of the GOVERNMENT, publicly releases ALL the data, as I proved to you 50 posts ago.

You initially admitted you were wrong. You should have stuck with that,.

Yeah. The BLS releases numbers that make Obama look good, and the Dem-enabling media shout it from the rooftops.

To get any BLS data that show anything less than a rosy picture, you have to go get the numbers yourself. Oh, and you'll need internet access.

You contend that's exactly the same.

I recommend you go read the BLS release I linked to, and then show us what they hid.

You prove my point. You think breathless MSM stories about Obama saving the economy is EXACTLY the same as people having to go find data themselves.

 

[daveman]

Yeah. The BLS releases numbers that make Obama look good, and the Dem-enabling media shout it from the rooftops.

To get any BLS data that show anything less than a rosy picture, you have to go get the numbers yourself. .

And your evidence is what? Please give examples of differing press releases where any data set is talked about when it's good and not mentioned when it's bad. Archived news releases 1994-2011

You won't find any BLS news release that says anything positive or negative...they just report the data.

You want me to link to news stories that don't mention things?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again, why are you saying that to me instead of the other poster that BLAMED Congress for the recession?

Doesn't to much congressional over sight hinder the private sector by slowing it down with to many regulations by not making it profitable to keep working?

BUMP just in case you missed it.

Did the Democratic Congress in 2007 pass some particularly onerous regulation, and get the Senate to pass it, and get Bush to sign it,

that then caused the recession to begin in December of that year?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah. The BLS releases numbers that make Obama look good, and the Dem-enabling media shout it from the rooftops.

To get any BLS data that show anything less than a rosy picture, you have to go get the numbers yourself. Oh, and you'll need internet access.

You contend that's exactly the same.

I recommend you go read the BLS release I linked to, and then show us what they hid.

You prove my point. You think breathless MSM stories about Obama saving the economy is EXACTLY the same as people having to go find data themselves.

IOW, you can't. Fair enough. You never can. I should stop bothering to ask.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah. The BLS releases numbers that make Obama look good, and the Dem-enabling media shout it from the rooftops.

To get any BLS data that show anything less than a rosy picture, you have to go get the numbers yourself. .

And your evidence is what? Please give examples of differing press releases where any data set is talked about when it's good and not mentioned when it's bad. Archived news releases 1994-2011

You won't find any BLS news release that says anything positive or negative...they just report the data.

You want me to link to news stories that don't mention things?

No, he wants you to provide actual evidence of your nonsensical claim that the BLS is withholding data in order to make Obama look good.

1. show us the data

2. show us where it should have normally been included in the standard BLS reports.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Doesn't to much congressional over sight hinder the private sector by slowing it down with to many regulations by not making it profitable to keep working?

BUMP just in case you missed it.

Did the Democratic Congress in 2007 pass some particularly onerous regulation, and get the Senate to pass it, and get Bush to sign it,

that then caused the recession to begin in December of that year?

We the regulations already in place?

 

[kiwiman127]

Putting the very snail like recovery blame all on politicians is kinda crazy and really doesn't jive with reality.

True, Obama's plan for righting the economy was ill-conceived and was mildly successful at best. But the "mildly successful at best" isn't a good result considering the amount money that was invested.

I think one has to look at Corporate America and the banks to get the US economy going, but it looks like that is not a priority for those business sectors.

Corporate America is doing great with record profits while not hiring in the US. They are content to do most of their hiring offshore where labor costs are much lower. If one looks at the time frame when wages became flat and offshoring increased and then if one compares the rise of Corporate America's rise in profits, one can see a distinct pattern/trend. The lower the cost of paying for manpower the better the profits.

In the past year, loans to small businesses are at a 12 year low. Small businesses are responsible for a majority of the jobs in America. By not giving loans to small businesses, banks take away the ability of small businesses to expand/start-up, thus hurting the ability for small businesses to hire people.

The bottom-line for America to shake off this very, very slow recovery and move forward is to get people back to work. Yet two of the top players to get that job done are just sitting on their hands in stimulating getting Americans back to work. Because so many Americas aren't working and contributing to the overall economy, the US is spinning it's wheels and is going nowhere.

This trend of Big Business not helping America isn't a new trend. It happened to a lesser degree after the 2001 Recession. Yes, I know that the unemployment rate got down went from 5.5% in 2005 down to 4.6 in 2007 but if one looks at the underemployment charts/Labor Force Participation Rate, they don't match up with similar unemployment rate numbers in the 1990's. The actual unemployment rate was around 14%. (The unemployment rate was at 4.5 in 1998, compare the Labor Participation Rate to 2007 with the attached Labor Participation Rate Chart).

Starting in the early 2000's, offshoring jobs began as serious climb and not that many US companies hired domestically, just like what is happening now. The event of Corporate America falling in love with offshoring jobs and the continuation of flat wages led to "on paper" recovery from the 2001 Recession. But a seriously economically stalled Middle Class was reality and certainly led to America falling into the biggest financial downturn since the Great Depression.

Now today, the US isn't better off. The US get better off won't happen until America's corporate and financial sector decides to get involved with their own country.

 

[pinqy]

Yeah. The BLS releases numbers that make Obama look good, and the Dem-enabling media shout it from the rooftops.

To get any BLS data that show anything less than a rosy picture, you have to go get the numbers yourself. .

And your evidence is what? Please give examples of differing press releases where any data set is talked about when it's good and not mentioned when it's bad. Archived news releases 1994-2011

You won't find any BLS news release that says anything positive or negative...they just report the data.

You want me to link to news stories that don't mention things?

No, your claim was that BLS only released numbers that make Obama look good. I'm asking you to back up that claim. So you would have to show incomplete BLS news releases, not the snippets the media reports.

 

[daveman]

I recommend you go read the BLS release I linked to, and then show us what they hid.

You prove my point. You think breathless MSM stories about Obama saving the economy is EXACTLY the same as people having to go find data themselves.

IOW, you can't. Fair enough. You never can. I should stop bothering to ask.

And the really funny part is, you think you made an actual intelligent defense of the Obama Admin's utilization of the lickspittle media.

Your alleged "logic" says being handed something is exactly the same as getting it for yourself.

 

[daveman]

And your evidence is what? Please give examples of differing press releases where any data set is talked about when it's good and not mentioned when it's bad. Archived news releases 1994-2011

You won't find any BLS news release that says anything positive or negative...they just report the data.

You want me to link to news stories that don't mention things?

No, he wants you to provide actual evidence of your nonsensical claim that the BLS is withholding data in order to make Obama look good.

1. show us the data

2. show us where it should have normally been included in the standard BLS reports.

Where did I claim the BLS is withholding data?

Oh, yeah. I didn't. Could you please make a point without lying?

 

[daveman]

And your evidence is what? Please give examples of differing press releases where any data set is talked about when it's good and not mentioned when it's bad. Archived news releases 1994-2011

You won't find any BLS news release that says anything positive or negative...they just report the data.

You want me to link to news stories that don't mention things?

No, your claim was that BLS only released numbers that make Obama look good. I'm asking you to back up that claim. So you would have to show incomplete BLS news releases, not the snippets the media reports.

I claimed no such thing. I said the media reports numbers that make Obama look good and bury numbers that show his economic policies are a failure.

 

[Sundial]

Again, what specific stats are you pointing to ?
The wik page does little to support your claim

Obama is on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era.
Unless things turn around


According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since President Obama took office, the nation has lost 1.9 million jobs, prompting Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler to write if the economy does not turn around, “Obama is on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era.”



Specifically, why is that wrong?
My original statement still stands

As I stated, I mis-read the chart. You were making a claim from the day Obama took office. That might be a dishonest date to select, but since then, yes, we have more people out of work. However, from the date of Obama's first budget, no, we don't. In other words, once Obama got the stimulus passed and his budget passed, things got better. That is fact and is supported by the chart I linked.

As for the worst job record, I doubt it. We are gaining roughly 150,000 a month which would give us 1.65M by the election, and 1.8M by January 2013, assuming absolutely nothing changes. His total job number would beat Bush Jr easily.

If things continue as the recent uptick blip has gone, then the Big 0 will have added 1.5 million jobs between today and the election. That will leave him about 1.5 million jobs shy of where he was when he took office.

This will make him the first President in the history of the Republic to leave office with fewer employed than when he entered office. This is amazing for two reasons: 1) That all of the rest have shown increases and 2) That he could blow it this big and not be getting reamed for it.

By the by, the total employed increased under Bush, too. The highest total of American employed ever was under Bush and was in the year that preceded the take over of both houses of Congress by the Democrats. From that point on, it's been downhill.

What a Party! What a leader!

Wrong. if Obama creates 1.5 million jobs between now and the election, he'll be +1 million since he was elected.

He wouldn't be the first president to leave office with fewer employed than when he started (anyway) because the last president - GW Bush - already did that.

All Employees: Total Private Industries (USPRIV):

2001-02-01 111,624,000
2009-02-01 110,260,000

Difference: 1.4 million.

 

[kiwiman127]

You want me to link to news stories that don't mention things?

No, your claim was that BLS only released numbers that make Obama look good. I'm asking you to back up that claim. So you would have to show incomplete BLS news releases, not the snippets the media reports.

I claimed no such thing. I said the media reports numbers that make Obama look good and bury numbers that show his economic policies are a failure.

"I said the media reports numbers that make Obama look good and bury numbers that show his economic policies are a failure"

Actually, this isn't something new. Numbers have been fudged under previous administrations also. This isn't an excuse for Obama, it's just the way things have been for quite awhile.

 

[daveman]

No, your claim was that BLS only released numbers that make Obama look good. I'm asking you to back up that claim. So you would have to show incomplete BLS news releases, not the snippets the media reports.

I claimed no such thing. I said the media reports numbers that make Obama look good and bury numbers that show his economic policies are a failure.

"I said the media reports numbers that make Obama look good and bury numbers that show his economic policies are a failure"

Actually, this isn't something new. Numbers have been fudged under previous administrations also. This isn't an excuse for Obama, it's just the way things have been for quite awhile.

Indeed. Yet Obama was going to be different, wasn't he?


Pffft. And people actually believed him when he said that.

 

[Sundial]

As I stated, I mis-read the chart. You were making a claim from the day Obama took office. That might be a dishonest date to select, but since then, yes, we have more people out of work. However, from the date of Obama's first budget, no, we don't. In other words, once Obama got the stimulus passed and his budget passed, things got better. That is fact and is supported by the chart I linked.

As for the worst job record, I doubt it. We are gaining roughly 150,000 a month which would give us 1.65M by the election, and 1.8M by January 2013, assuming absolutely nothing changes. His total job number would beat Bush Jr easily.

The number of jobs under Bush shrank during the 8 years he was in office. A remarkable achievement. Assuming the current trend continues, Obama will have created net jobs within the next few months, meaning he'll have beaten Bush by then - if he hasn't already.

That is factually incorrect. Link?

All Employees: Total Private Industries (USPRIV) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

 

[Sundial]

When the last UE numbers came out, virtually every news outlet I saw included the reporting of the number of people who had given up looking for work as a partial explanation for the drop.

Now why would they do that if they're all in the tank for the Obama administration?

They wouldn't. He said something factually untrue and easily proven false, and then resorted to blaming the media for it. The truth is readily available and easily found out, but too many people prefer to believe what's self-serving - what reinforces their misconceptions.

Republicans have become the feel-good party for anti-intellectuals and misanthropes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When the last UE numbers came out, virtually every news outlet I saw included the reporting of the number of people who had given up looking for work as a partial explanation for the drop.

Now why would they do that if they're all in the tank for the Obama administration?

Funny thing I never saw it. The media was acting as if it was a great victory that the UE numbers drop 4 /10ths of a point. As a matter of fact I have never notice any mainstream media source that uses the other report.