How did the unemployment numbers drop .2 percent

[GWV5903]

The problem with using U6 is that it was never used during the Bush Administration so people don't have a relative idea of what it should be that they can use as a comparison. This leads to people arguing over Bush having 5% unemployment and Obama having 15.1% because they don't realize it's two different measurements.

If you want to use U6, I'm on board. Just everyone should know it was over 10% in 2003 and 14.2% when Obama took office.

Fine....except that it was 11.8 in October of '08, the end of the Bush term, and up to as much as 17% under Obama.

That means a 44% increase in unemployment under 'The One.'

Did you take a gander at the constant increase in unemployment as a result of the so- called "Stimulus"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buRO9TSlScQ]Joe Biden calls Jon Corzine for Advice Again - YouTube[/ame]

"The first guy I called"..... Jon"The MF Global BK King" Corzine..... "The smartest guy I know"......"You see I don't know too many smart guys.....but this fellow here had the same plan we did"....

Basically folks it's one or the other, you're dumb as shit and we know it or we don't give a shit and we are going to shove it up your ass whether you like it or not...

Get it....

 

[Jarhead]

The criteria for being counted was changed.

No it wasn't.

First time unemployment claims are not a factor in the unemployment rate. And at any rate, jobs created is a net figure and from a completely different survey.

are you saying that when they say "jobs created" they are not taking into consideration "jobs lost" during the same period?

I ask becuase as a recruiter, I have found most of my placements for the past 3 years have been REPLACING people that were fired for a variety of reasons ranging from poor work ethic to insubordination.

I can not think of many that were "additions to staff"

So when we hear "jobs created" are they referring to "new hires"?

Becuase if they are, they are not jobs created...they are replacement hires....and there is a big difference

 

[8537]

The criteria for being counted was changed.

Exactly, they no longer count those that quit looking for work altogether.

They never did.

Or, more precisely -they always have, but only as part of the U6.

 

[8537]

The criteria for being counted was changed.

No it wasn't.

First time unemployment claims are not a factor in the unemployment rate. And at any rate, jobs created is a net figure and from a completely different survey.

are you saying that when they say "jobs created" they are not taking into consideration "jobs lost" during the same period?

No, the jobs created is a net figure. It's total jobs created minus total jobs lost.

.

So when we hear "jobs created" are they referring to "new hires"?

They are referring to the change in total jobs.

 

[Rozman]

When the jobs created in jan was 257,000 , and just the last week of Jan the unemployment claims were 377,000 for first time filers.. The numbers just dont add up for me..

here are the links..
Jobs created in Jan is 257,000



Stat of the Week: 257,000 New Private-Sector Jobs Created | InvestorPlace

People who applied for first time unemployment in the last week of Jan 26th 2012 is 377,000


First-time unemployment claims climb to 377,000 - Jan. 26, 2012

It's election time kiddies and it's time to tweak the books to help Obama get re elected.

 

[edthecynic]

The criteria for being counted was changed.

They quit counting people that no longer get unemployment.

You both are full of shit!!!

 

[edthecynic]

October of '08, the end of the Bush term

You get more stupid with every post. Stop parroting your MessiahRushie's rationalizations that Obama was president from the day he was elected.

November 6, 2008
RUSH: The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen. Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession.