Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The important figure to look at is the net change in jobs created or lost.
When Obama took office, the economy was losing 800,000 per month. We're gaining around 150,000 a month today. That's a change of nearly a million jobs a month.
Is it enough?
No. More is needed.
That's why we need a different Congress: one that will be part of the solution, or get out of the way.
How many TOTAL jobs have been lost or gained since Obama was inaugurated?
4,303,000 jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession in early 2010. That's a decrease of 3.2%.
1,886,000 jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were CREATED from the "trough" of the recession until now, August, 2011. That's an increase of 1.5%.
In total, 2,417,000 jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until now, August 2011. That's a decrease of 1.8%.
We have experienced 11 months WITHOUT job losses since September 2010. We have added 821,000 jobs during those 11 months.
Molly's Middle America: Private and Government Jobs Lost and Gained Under Obama: Through August 2011
PAY ATTENTIONWhich is why you are now suddenly using Gallup. In October when Gallup showed unemployment going down to below 8.6%, CON$ used BLS which had unemployment at 9%last report from BLS showed unemployment going down hows is it working for you now?
Unemployment is going up Dumb-ass.
To realize a perceived political advantage, of course.You're searching everywhere for anything that confirms what you want to be true, while dismissing anything that shows the economy is improving.
Why?
The important figure to look at is the net change in jobs created or lost.
When Obama took office, the economy was losing 800,000 per month. We're gaining around 150,000 a month today. That's a change of nearly a million jobs a month.
Is it enough?
No. More is needed.
That's why we need a different Congress: one that will be part of the solution, or get out of the way.
How many TOTAL jobs have been lost or gained since Obama was inaugurated?
4,303,000 jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession in early 2010. That's a decrease of 3.2%.
1,886,000 jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were CREATED from the "trough" of the recession until now, August, 2011. That's an increase of 1.5%.
In total, 2,417,000 jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until now, August 2011. That's a decrease of 1.8%.
We have experienced 11 months WITHOUT job losses since September 2010. We have added 821,000 jobs during those 11 months.
Molly's Middle America: Private and Government Jobs Lost and Gained Under Obama: Through August 2011
As of Feb. 1, 2009 there were 110,260,000 private sector jobs in the US.
As of Nov. 1, 2011 there were 109,719,000.
That's a difference of 541,000 jobs, not 2.4 million.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/USPRIV.txt
Those are the official numbers.
PAY ATTENTIONWhich is why you are now suddenly using Gallup. In October when Gallup showed unemployment going down to below 8.6%, CON$ used BLS which had unemployment at 9%
Unemployment is going up Dumb-ass.
According to Gallup, unemployment went down in OCTOBER, which is why no CON$ used Gallup in October!!!! Of course to show UE going up in November, CON$ use the lower October Gallup rate they ignored to compare November to. If they compare the 8.7% Gallup November to the 9% BLS rate CON$ used for October, to be consistent, then UE went down in November using CON$ervative data.
You are definitely milking your patented Dumb Act.
To realize a perceived political advantage, of course.You're searching everywhere for anything that confirms what you want to be true, while dismissing anything that shows the economy is improving.
Why?
There are a significant number of republicans and conservatives who actually hope the economy worsens and millions of Americans continue to suffer only to get rid of Obama.
Up from 8.3% to 8.7%, but CON$ have been claiming that the rate has been 9% or higher while Gallup had it at 8.3%.PAY ATTENTIONUnemployment is going up Dumb-ass.
According to Gallup, unemployment went down in OCTOBER, which is why no CON$ used Gallup in October!!!! Of course to show UE going up in November, CON$ use the lower October Gallup rate they ignored to compare November to. If they compare the 8.7% Gallup November to the 9% BLS rate CON$ used for October, to be consistent, then UE went down in November using CON$ervative data.
You are definitely milking your patented Dumb Act.
No you pay attention both your link and my link show the unemployment numbers are going up. in November and December.
Up from 8.3% to 8.7%, but CON$ have been claiming that the rate has been 9% or higher while Gallup had it at 8.3%.PAY ATTENTION
According to Gallup, unemployment went down in OCTOBER, which is why no CON$ used Gallup in October!!!! Of course to show UE going up in November, CON$ use the lower October Gallup rate they ignored to compare November to. If they compare the 8.7% Gallup November to the 9% BLS rate CON$ used for October, to be consistent, then UE went down in November using CON$ervative data.
You are definitely milking your patented Dumb Act.
No you pay attention both your link and my link show the unemployment numbers are going up. in November and December.
To recap, CON$ use whatever numbers fit their prejudices. When Gallup showed UE was 8.3% and falling CON$ used the "fudged" 9% BLS rate and ignored Gallup. But now that Gallup and BLS are about the same, 8.7% and 8.6% respectively, suddenly the ignored 8.3% Gallup rate is the standard that the direction is measured against, and the 9% BLS rate CON$ had been using is now ignored.
This Government's reported Unemployment numbers are a sham. The real Unemployment numbers are much higher than what they report. It's called 'Fuzzy Math.' They low-ball the numbers for sure.
What is seasonal adjustment? Isn't that fudging the numbers?
All of that crap has been a diversion away from the fact that CON$ like Gallup never used the underemployment rates for GOP presidents, and CON$ on this board switch back and forth from BLS to Gallup which ever is higher, not which ever is true. That is why there were no references to October Gallup unemployment rates which were lower than the BLS rates. For October CONS use the "fudged" BLS rates.First of all, your link is not to the CON$ervative Christian Gallup's site, who leans to the Right. So I went to his site to check his U3 numbers since the Right Wing Gallup never collected U6 numbers during Bush. Apparently the higher number is reserved for Democrats.
The U3 rate is pretty much the same as the BLS rates that you wish us to swallow are "fudged." Funny how CON$ didn't use the Gallup U3 numbers that showed unemployment under 9% in October and used the higher BLS for that month!
CON$ will lie and say they only seek the true numbers, but it is obvious they only seek the numbers that support their hate.
U.S. Underemployment in Mid-December Similar to a Year Ago
What the fuck are you babbling about? Gallup says unemployment is going up.
What is seasonal adjustment? Isn't that fudging the numbers?
Analogy time: You are a developer for beach front property. You want to know if the water level is getting higher or lower over time. So you go out and take some measurements at noon every day and you find that the water level is getting a little higher every day and you conclude that the water level is rising. But you keep on measuring and then you see that the water level is getting a little lower every day. What's going on? Oh, you didn't take the tide into account. Unless you account for the tide, you have no idea what the actual water level is doing....you get a rough estimate at best.
So too with the labor market. Every November employment goes up. Every January it goes down. It goes up again May/June when kids leave school, and goes down again in the fall when they go back. There are regular seasonal variations to employment and unemployment.
So seasonal adjustment corrects for that. The software looks at past data and applies it to the current trend, eliminating the regular seasonal variations to show the underlying trend.
For annual averages or comparing the same month in different years, the Unadjusted numbers are better. But for month to month changes and for comparing different months in different years, seasonally adjusted data is better.
Nothing at all, if that's what you want. Though I'm not sure what you mean by "real, verifiable" numbers. Since it's impossible to do a full census every month or even every year, a survey has to be used and that comes with a margin of error. But to look at month to month changes, you have to use seasonal adjustment or the picture will be distorted.What is seasonal adjustment? Isn't that fudging the numbers?
Analogy time: You are a developer for beach front property. You want to know if the water level is getting higher or lower over time. So you go out and take some measurements at noon every day and you find that the water level is getting a little higher every day and you conclude that the water level is rising. But you keep on measuring and then you see that the water level is getting a little lower every day. What's going on? Oh, you didn't take the tide into account. Unless you account for the tide, you have no idea what the actual water level is doing....you get a rough estimate at best.
So too with the labor market. Every November employment goes up. Every January it goes down. It goes up again May/June when kids leave school, and goes down again in the fall when they go back. There are regular seasonal variations to employment and unemployment.
So seasonal adjustment corrects for that. The software looks at past data and applies it to the current trend, eliminating the regular seasonal variations to show the underlying trend.
For annual averages or comparing the same month in different years, the Unadjusted numbers are better. But for month to month changes and for comparing different months in different years, seasonally adjusted data is better.
What's wrong with using real, verifiable numbers and comparing them year to year?
I know this is a game both parties play to make UE sound better than it is, and it's fucking stupid for both of them to assume people are stupid enough to buy it.
What is seasonal adjustment? Isn't that fudging the numbers?
Analogy time: You are a developer for beach front property. You want to know if the water level is getting higher or lower over time. So you go out and take some measurements at noon every day and you find that the water level is getting a little higher every day and you conclude that the water level is rising. But you keep on measuring and then you see that the water level is getting a little lower every day. What's going on? Oh, you didn't take the tide into account. Unless you account for the tide, you have no idea what the actual water level is doing....you get a rough estimate at best.
So too with the labor market. Every November employment goes up. Every January it goes down. It goes up again May/June when kids leave school, and goes down again in the fall when they go back. There are regular seasonal variations to employment and unemployment.
So seasonal adjustment corrects for that. The software looks at past data and applies it to the current trend, eliminating the regular seasonal variations to show the underlying trend.
For annual averages or comparing the same month in different years, the Unadjusted numbers are better. But for month to month changes and for comparing different months in different years, seasonally adjusted data is better.
What is seasonal adjustment? Isn't that fudging the numbers?
Analogy time: You are a developer for beach front property. You want to know if the water level is getting higher or lower over time. So you go out and take some measurements at noon every day and you find that the water level is getting a little higher every day and you conclude that the water level is rising. But you keep on measuring and then you see that the water level is getting a little lower every day. What's going on? Oh, you didn't take the tide into account. Unless you account for the tide, you have no idea what the actual water level is doing....you get a rough estimate at best.
So too with the labor market. Every November employment goes up. Every January it goes down. It goes up again May/June when kids leave school, and goes down again in the fall when they go back. There are regular seasonal variations to employment and unemployment.
So seasonal adjustment corrects for that. The software looks at past data and applies it to the current trend, eliminating the regular seasonal variations to show the underlying trend.
For annual averages or comparing the same month in different years, the Unadjusted numbers are better. But for month to month changes and for comparing different months in different years, seasonally adjusted data is better.
So what you are saying is fuzzy math used for political purposes is ok depending on who is running the government?
I know that isn't exactly your words but it is in my opinion your intent.
Analogy time: You are a developer for beach front property. You want to know if the water level is getting higher or lower over time. So you go out and take some measurements at noon every day and you find that the water level is getting a little higher every day and you conclude that the water level is rising. But you keep on measuring and then you see that the water level is getting a little lower every day. What's going on? Oh, you didn't take the tide into account. Unless you account for the tide, you have no idea what the actual water level is doing....you get a rough estimate at best.
So too with the labor market. Every November employment goes up. Every January it goes down. It goes up again May/June when kids leave school, and goes down again in the fall when they go back. There are regular seasonal variations to employment and unemployment.
So seasonal adjustment corrects for that. The software looks at past data and applies it to the current trend, eliminating the regular seasonal variations to show the underlying trend.
For annual averages or comparing the same month in different years, the Unadjusted numbers are better. But for month to month changes and for comparing different months in different years, seasonally adjusted data is better.
So what you are saying is fuzzy math used for political purposes is ok depending on who is running the government?
I know that isn't exactly your words but it is in my opinion your intent.
How on earth are you getting that? First, the math is not fuzzy, it's pretty rigorous. Just because YOU don't understand statistics doesn't mean the math is fuzzy.
Second, I've said nothing to imply that I have any political preferences. I was saying the same things when Bush was president and idiot Liberals were trying to say the numbers were fudged.
Just because you're blindly partisan doesn't mean everyone else is.
If it's rigorous why is there any need to come back and revise the numbers? the BLS has been doing this for years looks like they would finally get the numbers right when they first release the numbers.First, the math is not fuzzy, it's pretty rigorous
This is news to me. you aren't a liberal? Maybe you need to revise some of your other post.I've said nothing to imply that I have any political preferences. I was saying the same things when Bush was president and idiot Liberals were trying to say the numbers were fudged.
Your link doesn't work.
If you go to the BLS site and search for job growth by president, you will see that more people are working today than when Obama took office. That is a fact.
Wikipedia has a chart of it:
Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
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.
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.
