More economic good news, unemployment rate drops to 8.6%

[Listening]

News of the new energy bill a little while ago said it COULD add millions of jobs but the GObP/Repubs can't allow that.

Kinda like the stimulus ?

Why don't you wake up and smell the horsecrap (a.k.a. Harry Ried).

It could also add to our debt and deepen the recession.

Repubs won't allow that.

 

[Meister]

Gotta love it... 3 walk away because they can't find a job, 1 finds a job, and the unemployment rate goes down.

Yeah, nothing corrupt here.

if the three even stayed counted, then of the "4" you're talking about, there's 25% less unemployment. I don't see why that would be a negative, but ok.

The three is not all of the unemployed...only the ones that aren't on the rolls any longer.

 

[8537]

Sure. We start with the following situation: 4 people don't have a job.

After this report, we are in the following situation: 3 people don't have a job. 1 person does have a job.

Let's try it this way....

There are 1000 people who want to work.

910 have jobs.

90 don't but are looking.

That is 9% unemployment.

Are we good so far ?

O.K.

Then

10 people loose their jobs.

We now have 900 people with jobs and 100 without but looking...10% unemployment.

Now.

50 more people lose their jobs

and 75 of the 100 that did not have jobs quit looking.

So we now have.....

850 with jobs

75 without jobs who are looking.

75 without jobs who quit looking.

So we now calculate unemployment against 925 people.

Our unemployment rate is 75/925 or 8%.

But 150 people don't have jobs.

Did I get that right.

By "get that right" are you asking me to check your math? If so, its correct.

But it doesn't change the math of Frank's numbers: 4 people were without jobs. Now 3 people are without jobs. In any normal universe, the "3 people without jobs" scenario is better than the 4.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

News of the new energy bill a little while ago said it COULD add millions of jobs but the GObP/Repubs can't allow that.

Considering how much the president's policies have benefited us, if the damn pubs would just go home, we could do a hell of a lot more.

But no - they're so busy pledging not to raise taxes and then raising taxes on the working class while protecting their owners, there's no doubt they'll just keep right on filibustering anything that could help the US while forcing through legislation to put more money in the pockets of the 1%.

Or the new energy bill could be money in the pockets of another Solyndra type company.

 

[Meister]

The reason unemployment # dropped is because 315K people stopped looking for jobs.

Then for the jobs that were "created" in Nov, more than half were in seasonal low paying retail, restaurant and bars! 70% are in these low level service jobs, which a large portion of these jobs can be attributed to temporary and seasonal! Either way 120K jobs "created" is horrible for any month and for the holiday seasonal time it's pitiful!

Um do liberals realize retailers hire temp seasonal workers for holiday push and then let them go come Jan? I used to do some work every Christmas break when I was on College break.

Do liberals realize that bars and restaurants gear up for humble day, Christmas break when the beer drinking college kids come home, the holiday season and of course New Years? They start the holiday hiring in Nov and usually cut them loose in Jan!

Read more: Unemployment Rate Falls To 8.6 Percent | Fox News
More than half the jobs added were by retailers, restaurants and bars, a sign that holiday hiring has kicked in. Retailers added 50,000 jobs, the sector's biggest gain since April. Restaurants and bars hired 33,000 new workers. The health care industry added 17,000.

The numbers are seasonally adjusted to compensate for the expected variance of the holidays.

They aren't exact numbers and are usually tilted to benefit any administration. The true numbers will come out next month.

 

[G.T.]

where did that number of 1 hiure to 3 drop come from?

Not being sarcastic...just curious as to who made that number up?

He's saying that because 315000 people who did not find jobs/stopped looking were removed from being listed as "unemployed," while only 120, 000 were hired in November.

The problem with his math is simple. (besides 120x3 = 360)




He's acting as though the 315,000 are somehow newly unemployed or something, which is the only way the number negates the good news that we added 120k jobs, when the reality is this:

add the 2 together: 315000 and 120000 = 435000

so before November, speaking only in the context of these two numbers - - 28% of those specific 435k folks are now employed, when before November, 100% of them were unemployed.

That's a positive in anyone's book, and as 8537 continues to school people on: holiday/seasonal hiring is adjusted in the ue % in order to reflect a more accurate number.

They see this in the article: More than half the jobs added were by retailers, restaurants and bars, a sign that holiday hiring has kicked in. Retailers added 50,000 jobs, the sector's biggest gain since April. Restaurants and bars hired 33,000 new workers. The health care industry added 17,000.

And pretend that, that means: the 8.6% number wasn't adjusted for seasonal/holiday hiring, which it was - as always.

You seemed to have left out the rest of the unemployed that are still on the books. I know it was just an oversight on your behalf.

They weren't relevant to what I was responding to.

 

[Jarhead]

The reason unemployment # dropped is because 315K people stopped looking for jobs.

Then for the jobs that were "created" in Nov, more than half were in seasonal low paying retail, restaurant and bars! 70% are in these low level service jobs, which a large portion of these jobs can be attributed to temporary and seasonal! Either way 120K jobs "created" is horrible for any month and for the holiday seasonal time it's pitiful!

Um do liberals realize retailers hire temp seasonal workers for holiday push and then let them go come Jan? I used to do some work every Christmas break when I was on College break.

Do liberals realize that bars and restaurants gear up for humble day, Christmas break when the beer drinking college kids come home, the holiday season and of course New Years? They start the holiday hiring in Nov and usually cut them loose in Jan!

Read more: Unemployment Rate Falls To 8.6 Percent | Fox News
More than half the jobs added were by retailers, restaurants and bars, a sign that holiday hiring has kicked in. Retailers added 50,000 jobs, the sector's biggest gain since April. Restaurants and bars hired 33,000 new workers. The health care industry added 17,000.

The numbers are seasonally adjusted to compensate for the expected variance of the holidays.

Do you know that as fact? If yes, where can I find that information?

 

[8537]

Gotta love it... 3 walk away because they can't find a job, 1 finds a job, and the unemployment rate goes down.

Yeah, nothing corrupt here.

Well..yeah I mean this is hilarious. The rule of thumb is that 115,000 people enter the workforce a month so if only that many jobs are "created" then you are merely maintaining where you are. So according to this 120,000 were added last month meaning a 5,000 swing to the good side. BUT consider that's it's holiday season and most of those jobs will be temporary, and that 315,000 said "fuck it" altogether. And Dems are pumping their chest about this? I think they're pumping something but it's a little lower than their chest.

(1) the figures are seasonally adjusted. According to that survey, the NSA numbers are about 350,000.

(2) the household survey found 287,000 jobs added.

 

[Meister]

Sure. We start with the following situation: 4 people don't have a job.

After this report, we are in the following situation: 3 people don't have a job. 1 person does have a job.

Let's try it this way....

There are 1000 people who want to work.

910 have jobs.

90 don't but are looking.

That is 9% unemployment.

Are we good so far ?

O.K.

Then

10 people loose their jobs.

We now have 900 people with jobs and 100 without but looking...10% unemployment.

Now.

50 more people lose their jobs

and 75 of the 100 that did not have jobs quit looking.

So we now have.....

850 with jobs

75 without jobs who are looking.

75 without jobs who quit looking.

So we now calculate unemployment against 925 people.

Our unemployment rate is 75/925 or 8%.

But 150 people don't have jobs.

Did I get that right.

By "get that right" are you asking me to check your math? If so, its correct.

But it doesn't change the math of Frank's numbers: 4 people were without jobs. Now 3 people are without jobs. In any normal universe, the "3 people without jobs" scenario is better than the 4.

Try not to be a dunce...I've explained this......the 3 that fell off the rolls does not equate to the entire unemployment number...just the ones that fell off the rolls.

 

[8537]

The reason unemployment # dropped is because 315K people stopped looking for jobs.

Then for the jobs that were "created" in Nov, more than half were in seasonal low paying retail, restaurant and bars! 70% are in these low level service jobs, which a large portion of these jobs can be attributed to temporary and seasonal! Either way 120K jobs "created" is horrible for any month and for the holiday seasonal time it's pitiful!

Um do liberals realize retailers hire temp seasonal workers for holiday push and then let them go come Jan? I used to do some work every Christmas break when I was on College break.

Do liberals realize that bars and restaurants gear up for humble day, Christmas break when the beer drinking college kids come home, the holiday season and of course New Years? They start the holiday hiring in Nov and usually cut them loose in Jan!

The numbers are seasonally adjusted to compensate for the expected variance of the holidays.

Do you know that as fact? If yes, where can I find that information?

Yes, I know that as a fact. You can find it by reading the employment situation report at U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Notice the headings:
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

The 120,000 figure comes from the SA Establishment survey.
The unemployment rate comes from the SA Household data.

 

[Jarhead]

Gotta love it... 3 walk away because they can't find a job, 1 finds a job, and the unemployment rate goes down.

Yeah, nothing corrupt here.

Well..yeah I mean this is hilarious. The rule of thumb is that 115,000 people enter the workforce a month so if only that many jobs are "created" then you are merely maintaining where you are. So according to this 120,000 were added last month meaning a 5,000 swing to the good side. BUT consider that's it's holiday season and most of those jobs will be temporary, and that 315,000 said "fuck it" altogether. And Dems are pumping their chest about this? I think they're pumping something but it's a little lower than their chest.

(1) the figures are seasonally adjusted. According to that survey, the NSA numbers are about 350,000.

(2) the household survey found 287,000 jobs added.

what formula do they use to make the adjustment?

For example....at our peak we had as many as 1000 on our payroll during normal times.....and 1500 on our payroll from 11/01-1/31 of the following year.

That refers STRICTLY to our temp employees we would contract out.....

So we increased employment in our own world by 50% during the holidays.

Is that the kind of number they appluy for the adjustment?

 

[Meister]

He's saying that because 315000 people who did not find jobs/stopped looking were removed from being listed as "unemployed," while only 120, 000 were hired in November.

The problem with his math is simple. (besides 120x3 = 360)




He's acting as though the 315,000 are somehow newly unemployed or something, which is the only way the number negates the good news that we added 120k jobs, when the reality is this:

add the 2 together: 315000 and 120000 = 435000

so before November, speaking only in the context of these two numbers - - 28% of those specific 435k folks are now employed, when before November, 100% of them were unemployed.

That's a positive in anyone's book, and as 8537 continues to school people on: holiday/seasonal hiring is adjusted in the ue % in order to reflect a more accurate number.

They see this in the article: More than half the jobs added were by retailers, restaurants and bars, a sign that holiday hiring has kicked in. Retailers added 50,000 jobs, the sector's biggest gain since April. Restaurants and bars hired 33,000 new workers. The health care industry added 17,000.

And pretend that, that means: the 8.6% number wasn't adjusted for seasonal/holiday hiring, which it was - as always.

You seemed to have left out the rest of the unemployed that are still on the books. I know it was just an oversight on your behalf.

They weren't relevant to what I was responding to.

They are very relevant....but not to you obviously. You have to use all the unemployed to make your case authentic.

 

[BluePhantom]

But it doesn't change the math of Frank's numbers: 4 people were without jobs. Now 3 people are without jobs. In any normal universe, the "3 people without jobs" scenario is better than the 4.

Ahhhh...but you overlook that that one job is a temporary job that will last through December 24 and that one additional person also joined the workforce during that time. So now you had 4 people without jobs, 1 got a temporary job, 1 other person joined the workforce so you still have 4 people without jobs and a 5th coming right after Christmas.

 

[G.T.]

Let's try it this way....

There are 1000 people who want to work.

910 have jobs.

90 don't but are looking.

That is 9% unemployment.

Are we good so far ?

O.K.

Then

10 people loose their jobs.

We now have 900 people with jobs and 100 without but looking...10% unemployment.

Now.

50 more people lose their jobs

and 75 of the 100 that did not have jobs quit looking.

So we now have.....

850 with jobs

75 without jobs who are looking.

75 without jobs who quit looking.

So we now calculate unemployment against 925 people.

Our unemployment rate is 75/925 or 8%.

But 150 people don't have jobs.

Did I get that right.

By "get that right" are you asking me to check your math? If so, its correct.

But it doesn't change the math of Frank's numbers: 4 people were without jobs. Now 3 people are without jobs. In any normal universe, the "3 people without jobs" scenario is better than the 4.

Try not to be a dunce...I've explained this......the 3 that fell off the rolls does not equate to the entire unemployment number...just the ones that fell off the rolls.

Everyone but you knows that, and is following the discussion.

We're all referring back to Frank's one comment that 3x jobs added, people left the work force.

Not overall unemployment, simply discussing that 315k versus the 120k added. Jesus christ.

 

[Jarhead]

The numbers are seasonally adjusted to compensate for the expected variance of the holidays.

Do you know that as fact? If yes, where can I find that information?

Yes, I know that as a fact. You can find it by reading the employment situation report at U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Notice the headings:
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

Thanks...but I cant find the formula for the adjustment.
Do you know what it is?

 

[8537]

Let's try it this way....

There are 1000 people who want to work.

910 have jobs.

90 don't but are looking.

That is 9% unemployment.

Are we good so far ?

O.K.

Then

10 people loose their jobs.

We now have 900 people with jobs and 100 without but looking...10% unemployment.

Now.

50 more people lose their jobs

and 75 of the 100 that did not have jobs quit looking.

So we now have.....

850 with jobs

75 without jobs who are looking.

75 without jobs who quit looking.

So we now calculate unemployment against 925 people.

Our unemployment rate is 75/925 or 8%.

But 150 people don't have jobs.

Did I get that right.

By "get that right" are you asking me to check your math? If so, its correct.

But it doesn't change the math of Frank's numbers: 4 people were without jobs. Now 3 people are without jobs. In any normal universe, the "3 people without jobs" scenario is better than the 4.

Try not to be a dunce...

I'll do my best.

 

[Jarhead]

But it doesn't change the math of Frank's numbers: 4 people were without jobs. Now 3 people are without jobs. In any normal universe, the "3 people without jobs" scenario is better than the 4.

Ahhhh...but you overlook that that one job is a temporary job that will last through December 24 and that one additional person also joined the workforce during that time. So now you had 4 people without jobs, 1 got a temporary job, 1 other person joined the workforce so you still have 4 people without jobs and a 5th coming right after Christmas.

Actually...it usually lasts through 1/31.....sometimes 1/15

 

[Jarhead]

By "get that right" are you asking me to check your math? If so, its correct.

But it doesn't change the math of Frank's numbers: 4 people were without jobs. Now 3 people are without jobs. In any normal universe, the "3 people without jobs" scenario is better than the 4.

Try not to be a dunce...

I'll do my best.

you left yourself WIDE OPEN with that response.

 

[Jarhead]

Try not to be a dunce...

I'll do my best.

you left yourself WIDE OPEN with that response.

sort of like that chick with 15 kids

 

[paulitician]

Fuzzy Math. I have very little faith in Government numbers. It's obviously in this Administration's best interest to claim the Unemployment numbers are lower than they actually are. Unfortunately that's the way the system has been set up. Unemployment is much much higher than 8.6%. That number is just fantasy.