More economic GOOD NEWS: January unemployment rate falls to 9.7%

[pinqy]

Let's look at the numbers, shall we? and let's look at the margins of error for the suveys.
Non-Farm Payroll Employment, from the Current Employment Survey (companies that contribute to Unemployment Insurance)...-20,000. Margin of error at 90% confidence is +-99,453 so in reality Employment for went down as much as 119,434 or up as much as 79,435 Statistically indistinguishable from zero.

Current Population Survey..Employed (all employed including the self employed) up 541,000 Margin of error at 90% confidence is +- 437,553 so the actual change was definitely upwards.
Unemployment down 430,000 Margin of error at 90% confidence is +- 378,102 so the actual change was definitely downward. Overall the Labor Force changed somewhere between -266,221 and +488,221, withe the official estimate being up 111,000

Overall, yes this is better news than the last few months.

 

[Toro]

33,000 new federal bureaucrats is "good news" in what way?

Where did Ronald Reagan get his new jobs? Nobody expanded the federal government like Reagan did.
It is good news depending on where the new hires went. We are at war and the government needs defense workers, The VA is being overwhelmed with all the new vetrans, if you want jobs programs you need people to run it.

Obama's one year DEFICIT is equal to almost any two years of Reagans ENTIRE BUDGET

And Bush's last budget deficit was twice as large as Reagan's two budgets!

And Reagan's budgets were 10x the size of FDR's, not to mention his deficits were much much larger!

Reagan was worse than Carter! Ronnie the Pinko!

Of course, it doesn't make much sense to compare budgets in nominal dollars.

Federal government spending under Reagan was 20% of GDP, about what it was in 2007. Then, of course, Bush's last budget in fiscal year 2009 had a deficit of ~$1.3 trillion, and spending to GDP spiked up.

 

[Toro]

Let's look at the numbers, shall we? and let's look at the margins of error for the suveys.
Non-Farm Payroll Employment, from the Current Employment Survey (companies that contribute to Unemployment Insurance)...-20,000. Margin of error at 90% confidence is +-99,453 so in reality Employment for went down as much as 119,434 or up as much as 79,435 Statistically indistinguishable from zero.

Current Population Survey..Employed (all employed including the self employed) up 541,000 Margin of error at 90% confidence is +- 437,553 so the actual change was definitely upwards.
Unemployment down 430,000 Margin of error at 90% confidence is +- 378,102 so the actual change was definitely downward. Overall the Labor Force changed somewhere between -266,221 and +488,221, withe the official estimate being up 111,000

Overall, yes this is better news than the last few months.

Quit being rational, pinqy! Pick a political side and tell the other guy how stupid they are!

 

[amrchaos]

I thought the unemployment rate fell because the Labor Department got tired of counting the same people for over a year.

JUST SAYING......

 

[pinqy]

It simply means more people are in dire straights as their benefits just ran out....and more people have given up..and sadly we will likely see suicides start to increase.

Two problems....One: the unemployment rate is not and never has had anything to do with unemployment insurance benefits. It doesn't matter if someone's benefits have run out or if they ever received benefits or if they ever had a job in their life. If they don't have a job, and are looking for one, they're unemployed.
Two: the Labor Force went UP, not down, so the change is not people leaving the labor force. Remember, the official Employment number is NOT the one used for the Unemployment rate. The Employment number from the household survey (which includes many people the official rate does not) went UP by over 1/2 million. and Unemployment went down.

 

[ihopehefails]

The biggest tip-off is that the unemployment rate goes down and we still lost jobs. How does this happen because in order for someone to get employed they have to get a job but if we lose jobs then where are these jobs for the unemployed coming from?

 

[Oldandtired]

It simply means more people are in dire straights as their benefits just ran out....and more people have given up..and sadly we will likely see suicides start to increase.

Two problems....One: the unemployment rate is not and never has had anything to do with unemployment insurance benefits. It doesn't matter if someone's benefits have run out or if they ever received benefits or if they ever had a job in their life. If they don't have a job, and are looking for one, they're unemployed.
Two: the Labor Force went UP, not down, so the change is not people leaving the labor force. Remember, the official Employment number is NOT the one used for the Unemployment rate. The Employment number from the household survey (which includes many people the official rate does not) went UP by over 1/2 million. and Unemployment went down.

I believe you are incorrect.
The unemployment figure is based on claims made on a weekly basis...not NEW claims...NEW CLAIMS is how they determine NEW unemplyed..

But unemployment is based on benefits paid out....how many collected benefits during the month.

That is the only way they can keep tabs of who is unemplyed.

I believe I am correct......actually, I know I am correct.

That is why they say the actual number is usually about 6 points higher than the unemployment number....no matter who is in office.

 

[Neotrotsky]

January unemployment rate drops to 9.7% - USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7%, while employers shed 20,000 jobs, according to a report that offered hope the economy will add jobs soon.
The unemployment rate dropped from 10% because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose 541,000, the Labor Department said Friday. The job losses are calculated from a separate survey of employers.

Excluding the beleaguered construction industry, which shed 75,000 jobs, the private sector added 63,000 positions.

The unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since August. John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo, said the decline wasn't a result of a shrinking labor force, which has held the rate down in previous months.

"It simply was, people found jobs," he said. The report is "consistent with continued improvement in the labor market."

I noticed you left out some of the article. An honest mistake I am sure


Title should really be

Unemployment at 9.7% –so the the unemployment rate drops to 9.7% without adding a single job to it

Article:

The unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since August because a Labor Department survey of households found a sharp rise in the number of Americans with jobs. The survey found that 541,000 more Americans had jobs last month.

But those gains resulted from seasonal adjustments to the data. Without those adjustments, the data show fewer people had jobs last month.


But Paul Ashworth, an economist at Capital Economics, noted that the economy has been growing for six months, yet company payrolls are still shrinking.

"Based on what we've seen so far, we think it is fair to characterize this as another jobless recovery," Ashworth said.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The new math used for computing unemployment numbers....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHhyxTcaXOc]YouTube - Interactive Shell Game video[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

January unemployment rate drops to 9.7% - USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7%, while employers shed 20,000 jobs, according to a report that offered hope the economy will add jobs soon.
The unemployment rate dropped from 10% because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose 541,000, the Labor Department said Friday. The job losses are calculated from a separate survey of employers.

Excluding the beleaguered construction industry, which shed 75,000 jobs, the private sector added 63,000 positions.

The unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since August. John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo, said the decline wasn't a result of a shrinking labor force, which has held the rate down in previous months.

"It simply was, people found jobs," he said. The report is "consistent with continued improvement in the labor market."

I noticed you left out some of the article. An honest mistake I am sure


Title should really be

Unemployment at 9.7% –so the the unemployment rate drops to 9.7% without adding a single job to it

Article:

The unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since August because a Labor Department survey of households found a sharp rise in the number of Americans with jobs. The survey found that 541,000 more Americans had jobs last month.

But those gains resulted from seasonal adjustments to the data. Without those adjustments, the data show fewer people had jobs last month.


But Paul Ashworth, an economist at Capital Economics, noted that the economy has been growing for six months, yet company payrolls are still shrinking.

"Based on what we've seen so far, we think it is fair to characterize this as another jobless recovery," Ashworth said.

thanks

The unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since August because a Labor Department survey of households found a sharp rise in the number of Americans with jobs. The survey found that 541,000 more Americans had jobs last month.

Last January was "seasonally adjusted" too ....how do you explain the decrease in jobs lost from 770,000 to 20,000 ??

 

[pinqy]

It simply means more people are in dire straights as their benefits just ran out....and more people have given up..and sadly we will likely see suicides start to increase.

Two problems....One: the unemployment rate is not and never has had anything to do with unemployment insurance benefits. It doesn't matter if someone's benefits have run out or if they ever received benefits or if they ever had a job in their life. If they don't have a job, and are looking for one, they're unemployed.
Two: the Labor Force went UP, not down, so the change is not people leaving the labor force. Remember, the official Employment number is NOT the one used for the Unemployment rate. The Employment number from the household survey (which includes many people the official rate does not) went UP by over 1/2 million. and Unemployment went down.

I believe you are incorrect.
The unemployment figure is based on claims made on a weekly basis...not NEW claims...NEW CLAIMS is how they determine NEW unemplyed..

But unemployment is based on benefits paid out....how many collected benefits during the month.

That is the only way they can keep tabs of who is unemplyed.

I believe I am correct......actually, I know I am correct.

That is why they say the actual number is usually about 6 points higher than the unemployment number....no matter who is in office.

No, the Unemployment rate comes from a Household Survey of 60,000 households every month. It's been done this way since 1941. And has never been based in any way on Unemployment insurance.

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: they had no employment during the reference week; they
were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eli-
gibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

Bureau of Labor Statistics
Note that the people included is far more expansive than just people collecting benefits.

So no, you only believed you were correct. And that was a mistaken belief.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

A year ago, this country was on the brink of financial collapse. The market was in free fall we were losing 779,000 jobs a month.

Last month the number of lost jobs was 20,000. In November we even picked up jobs. All economic indicators are showing the worst is behind us. I know many on this board thrive on gloom and doom and disaster scenarios, but the economic numbers are promising across the board

Why do so many want the economy to fail?

No one wants the economy to fail...we don't want to be lied to or told that it's improving when it clearly isn't.

 

[pinqy]

The biggest tip-off is that the unemployment rate goes down and we still lost jobs. How does this happen because in order for someone to get employed they have to get a job but if we lose jobs then where are these jobs for the unemployed coming from?

Again, different surveys measuring different things at slightly different times. Non-farm payroll employment went down 20,000, with a margin of error of around +-98,000, while employment from the household survey (which includes farms and self-employed) went up around 500,000 with a margin of error of +-420,000 (roughly..those numbers are from memory.

 

[rightwinger]

A year ago, this country was on the brink of financial collapse. The market was in free fall we were losing 779,000 jobs a month.

Last month the number of lost jobs was 20,000. In November we even picked up jobs. All economic indicators are showing the worst is behind us. I know many on this board thrive on gloom and doom and disaster scenarios, but the economic numbers are promising across the board

Why do so many want the economy to fail?

No one wants the economy to fail...we don't want to be lied to or told that it's improving when it clearly isn't.

Clearly isn't? By what measure?

- GDP has risen last two quarters
- unemployment rate dropped for first time in a year
- Index of leading economic indicators has risen for eight straight months
- stock market is up 50%

You sure you are not rooting for the economy to fail?

 

[Neotrotsky]

A year ago, this country was on the brink of financial collapse. The market was in free fall we were losing 779,000 jobs a month.

Last month the number of lost jobs was 20,000. In November we even picked up jobs. All economic indicators are showing the worst is behind us. I know many on this board thrive on gloom and doom and disaster scenarios, but the economic numbers are promising across the board

Why do so many want the economy to fail?

No one wants the economy to fail...we don't want to be lied to or told that it's improving when it clearly isn't.

Clearly isn't? By what measure?

- GDP has risen last two quarters
- unemployment rate dropped for first time in a year
- Index of leading economic indicators has risen for eight straight months
- stock market is up %50

You sure you are not rooting for the economy to fail?

These could be very good signs that despite Papa Obama's and the left's best efforts they have not killed off capitalism totally yet



The good news; they are still trying

 

[skookerasbil]

According to the righties in a separate thread, "Government does not create jobs", so this should have no reflection on Obama.

the k00ks dont seem to understand..................that government jobs..................


....are payed for by taxpayers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Im laughing at the meager propaganda atempts by the k00ks to try to persuade people that the economy is hunky dorey!!! NOBODY thinks that..........and to boot, even the presidents OWN economic advisers publically stated as recently as this week that the unemployment rate is going to stay near double digits for at least the next 2-3 years!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Im fcukking amazed at the level of naive amongst the k00ks regarding the ecomomy..............

All the president would have to do is announce that he is dropping support of Crap and Trade legislation and there would be a small business boom. Of course, the k00ks couldnt possibly percieve the why of it

 

[skookerasbil]

From today's WSJ.................


FEBRUARY 6, 2010.
Opinions Split on Job Creation
.By DEBORAH SOLOMON
The stubbornly weak U.S. employment picture is ratcheting up pressure on Washington to fix what ails the labor market, but policy makers and economists are concluding there's no magic bullet to boost jobs.

Opinion is split over which, if any, of the policies in play offers the best hope of spurring employment. Even those who advocate government action say federal efforts can only reduce, not repair, the labor market.

More than eight-million jobs have been lost during the recession, a deficit compounded by the fact the economy needs to add more than one million jobs annually simply to keep up with the growth of the labor force.

.."Don't expect the government to solve the whole job deficit we now have," said Alan Blinder, a Princeton University economist and former Federal Reserve official. Mr. Blinder said it would be a "signal achievement" if government actions could add two-million jobs.



Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooops!!!!!!!!!

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The biggest tip-off is that the unemployment rate goes down and we still lost jobs. How does this happen because in order for someone to get employed they have to get a job but if we lose jobs then where are these jobs for the unemployed coming from?

Again, different surveys measuring different things at slightly different times. Non-farm payroll employment went down 20,000, with a margin of error of around +-98,000, while employment from the household survey (which includes farms and self-employed) went up around 500,000 with a margin of error of +-420,000 (roughly..those numbers are from memory.

Wrong. The information came from the survey itself.....and what does a margin of error of +- 420,000 say to you when the claim is the employment rate went up by 500,000? Sounds like someone's playing 3 card Monte.....

 

[PatekPhilippe]

A year ago, this country was on the brink of financial collapse. The market was in free fall we were losing 779,000 jobs a month.

Last month the number of lost jobs was 20,000. In November we even picked up jobs. All economic indicators are showing the worst is behind us. I know many on this board thrive on gloom and doom and disaster scenarios, but the economic numbers are promising across the board

Why do so many want the economy to fail?

No one wants the economy to fail...we don't want to be lied to or told that it's improving when it clearly isn't.

Clearly isn't? By what measure?

- GDP has risen last two quarters
- unemployment rate dropped for first time in a year
- Index of leading economic indicators has risen for eight straight months
- stock market is up %50

You sure you are not rooting for the economy to fail?

Thank TARP and Stimulus 1 for that....nothing more...nothing less. When people are unemployed they cannot spend money or contribute to the tax revenues for the government. This means that Obama and Bush propped up the economy with borrowed money from the Fed. Why do you think Obama wants more money for a new round of Stimulus spending? That's right...because the first round is going to run out and private sector jobs haven't returned...which means tax revenues haven't returned and the economy is still stagnant.