How can UE drop that dramatically with only 144000 jobs created?

It's a serious question for someone defending these numbers. If we need 200000+ just to keep pace with population growth and we gain less than that I don't get the math.

Not to mention that a drop of 0.3% is a total newly employed of 465 thousand! the math just doesn't add up.

To try to answer your question in the OP, the BLS was revising the number because it said that the number of employed was erroneously low las moth by about 81K. That added to the 114k is roughly 200k and keeps pace. Of course it doesn't explain the drop in UE, not even by half.
 
What's up with the penguin?

250px-Penguin.png
 
Honest question here.

We had months with double that and it barely budged.

Please explain.

If numbers hurt your head, then what good would an explanation do?

Let the adults work this out, sweetie.

Yeah we have, and the virdict is that the books have been cooked, sautee'd, fried, braised, grilled, flambe'd, steamed, baked and microwaved.
 
The answer lies in the way the monthly job figures are compiled, which often leads to confusion. The change in payrolls is derived from a survey of business establishments that the Labor Department conducts. The unemployment rate comes from a separate survey of households carried out by the Census Bureau. In theory, the two sets of figures should match up, but all too often they don’t, and this was one of those occasions. The household survey showed the number of people in work shooting up by 873,000, and it was this leap in employment that pushed down the unemployment rate.

Read more Obama, the Job Figures, and the Conspiracy Theorists : The New Yorker


873,000? Somebody is flat out lyin'.

An increase in employed by 873k, but only 114k jobs were created? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggghhhhhhtt.
 
More:

Anybody can see there is is a big difference between 873,000 and 114,000. But that doesn’t mean the fix was in. Having covered the U.S. economy for many years, I have never seen any credible evidence of malfeasance or political machinations on the part of the questioners and statisticians who produce the job figures. They occasionally get things wrong, and give a misleading impression of what’s happening in the economy, but that’s almost always a product of coverage problems with their surveys, or faulty statistical adjustments, rather than political bias. Of course, that doesn’t rule out something untoward happening. But in my experience it would be unprecedented. :confused:


Read more Obama, the Job Figures, and the Conspiracy Theorists : The New Yorker

So, absense of proof is proof of absense?
 
Honest question here.

We had months with double that and it barely budged.

Please explain.

Understandable. Not many Village Idiots can do the math.

Idiot? YOU'RE calling someone an idiot?!

You demonstrated your own idiocy just yesterday when you stated "JIM LEHRER THE BIG LOSER IN THE DEBATE...He obvious showed favoritism toward Romney gave him 25% more speaking time than the gave Obama", which we all showed you was an outright falsehood.

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

She's an idiot and a liberal, but I repeat myself.
 
Last edited:
Understandable. Not many Village Idiots can do the math.

Idiot? YOU'RE calling someone an idiot?!

You demonstrated your own idiocy just yesterday when you stated "JIM LEHRER THE BIG LOSER IN THE DEBATE...He obvious showed favoritism toward Romney gave him 25% more speaking time than the gave Obama", which we all showed you was an outright falsehood.

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

He's an idiot and a liberal, but I repeat myself.

"LilOLady" is a 'he'? Weird.
 
Idiot? YOU'RE calling someone an idiot?!

You demonstrated your own idiocy just yesterday when you stated "JIM LEHRER THE BIG LOSER IN THE DEBATE...He obvious showed favoritism toward Romney gave him 25% more speaking time than the gave Obama", which we all showed you was an outright falsehood.

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

He's an idiot and a liberal, but I repeat myself.

"LilOLady" is a 'he'? Weird.

Fixed, lol.
 
An increase in employed by 873k, but only 114k jobs were created? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggghhhhhhtt.

Total employment: Everyone 16 and older who worked at least one hour for pay or 15+ hours unpaid at a family business/farm went up 873k based on a survey of 60,000 households.

Non-farm payroll jobs: Everyone on the payroll of a company that contributes to UI taxes (and all govt employees too), which excludes Agriculture, self employed, and unpaid family workers and others (nannies, maids, private chefs etc) went up 114k based on a survey of 486,000 worksites

The difference is unusually high, even adjusting for different definitions, but that can happen...different time frame, different sample, etc.
 

Forum List

Back
Top