Not surprised about the drop in number of people on unemployment

[Full-Auto]

Not surprising at all. obama's labor department is working over time to cook those numbers

Jobs Report August 2012: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. | abc7chicago.com

Reb the government has changed how it figures unemployment twice in my lifetime.....

The intent each time was to manipulate the numbers downward.

Details please? With links to BLS or Census detailing these changes, of course...not some blogger.

Try google. The first one was with Reagen....I believe it was Reagen.....They added the military...... Try your search with adding the military in the tag.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A few months ago I said as we get closer to the election the number of people on unemployment will drop. Guess what I was right. obama's labor department must be working overtime to cook those numbers to not look suspicious.

How? Run us through the process and tell us when and how the numbers can be manipulated. If you actually look at it, you'd see it's pretty much impossible to do. BLS is an independent statistical organization, has never had anyone appointed by Obama in charge, so no one there would have any motive, and they would face oversight and would be spotted by Census or BEA or Congress, or academics doing research.

But please, if you think you know how they're doing it share. And contact your Congressman for an investigation.

I would have to get obama's play book to give you the details. The drop in unemployment numbers and the drop in new created the rise in people getting food stamps YOU TELL ME THOSE obama labor department numbers aren't cooked?

No new job, no new apartment, no recovery - Mar. 30, 2012

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not surprising at all. obama's labor department is working over time to cook those numbers

Jobs Report August 2012: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. | abc7chicago.com

Reb the government has changed how it figures unemployment twice in my lifetime.....

The intent each time was to manipulate the numbers downward.

The only thing we can credit this admin for is taking the sham to new heights.........

Yep

 

[pinqy]

Reb the government has changed how it figures unemployment twice in my lifetime.....

The intent each time was to manipulate the numbers downward.

Details please? With links to BLS or Census detailing these changes, of course...not some blogger.

Try google. The first one was with Reagen....I believe it was Reagen.....They added the military...... Try your search with adding the military in the tag.

And then military was removed in 1994. Also in 1994 the definition of unemployed was modified so that those who were expecting to start a new job within 30 days did not have to be looking for work to be classified as unemployed, now they do.

But that's it. No major definitional changes since 1967.

 

[pinqy]

A few months ago I said as we get closer to the election the number of people on unemployment will drop. Guess what I was right. obama's labor department must be working overtime to cook those numbers to not look suspicious.

How? Run us through the process and tell us when and how the numbers can be manipulated. If you actually look at it, you'd see it's pretty much impossible to do. BLS is an independent statistical organization, has never had anyone appointed by Obama in charge, so no one there would have any motive, and they would face oversight and would be spotted by Census or BEA or Congress, or academics doing research.

But please, if you think you know how they're doing it share. And contact your Congressman for an investigation.

I would have to get obama's play book to give you the details. The drop in unemployment numbers and the drop in new created the rise in people getting food stamps YOU TELL ME THOSE obama labor department numbers aren't cooked?

No new job, no new apartment, no recovery - Mar. 30, 2012

Oh, so you're just making shit up and don't have any actual evidence that the numbers are manipulated. Got it.

 

[PredFan]

Pretty simple folks.

Number of people on welfare = Up
Number of people receiving food stamps = UP
Number of people living in poverty = UP
Unemployment number is down.

Surely even basic amoeba can comprehend what's happening here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Pretty simple folks.

Number of people on welfare = Up
Number of people receiving food stamps = UP
Number of people living in poverty = UP
Unemployment number is down.

Surely even basic amoeba can comprehend what's happening here.

People like pinqy believe that I am making shit up. Could it be that obama's labor department is making shit up? Who has more to lose?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How? Run us through the process and tell us when and how the numbers can be manipulated. If you actually look at it, you'd see it's pretty much impossible to do. BLS is an independent statistical organization, has never had anyone appointed by Obama in charge, so no one there would have any motive, and they would face oversight and would be spotted by Census or BEA or Congress, or academics doing research.

But please, if you think you know how they're doing it share. And contact your Congressman for an investigation.

I would have to get obama's play book to give you the details. The drop in unemployment numbers and the drop in new created the rise in people getting food stamps YOU TELL ME THOSE obama labor department numbers aren't cooked?

No new job, no new apartment, no recovery - Mar. 30, 2012

Oh, so you're just making shit up and don't have any actual evidence that the numbers are manipulated. Got it.

Pred fan said it pretty good.

Pretty simple folks.

Number of people on welfare = Up
Number of people receiving food stamps = UP
Number of people living in poverty = UP
Unemployment number is down.

Surely even basic amoeba can comprehend what's happening here.

 

[Avorysuds]

A few months ago I said as we get closer to the election the number of people on unemployment will drop. Guess what I was right. obama's labor department must be working overtime to cook those numbers to not look suspicious.

http://lygsbtd.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/its_the_economy_stupid_.jpg

This is not the Introduce yourself part of the forums, if you wana post pictures of yourself you should head there.

 

[bugs]

Not surprising at all. obama's labor department is working over time to cook those numbers

Jobs Report August 2012: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. | abc7chicago.com

Reb the government has changed how it figures unemployment twice in my lifetime.....

The intent each time was to manipulate the numbers downward.

The only thing we can credit this admin for is taking the sham to new heights.........

Fucking Aye!

 

[pinqy]

Pretty simple folks.

Number of people on welfare = Up
Number of people receiving food stamps = UP
Number of people living in poverty = UP
Unemployment number is down.

Surely even basic amoeba can comprehend what's happening here.

People like pinqy believe that I am making shit up. Could it be that obama's labor department is making shit up? Who has more to lose?

BLS has never had an Obama appointee in it. And main DOL has nothing to do with BLS operations, only the HR admin stuff. So who at BLS has anything to lose? Nixon tried interfering with BLS and failed.

 

[Dick Tuck]

True...most likely it's because people are being dropped from unemployment because of the length of time they've been on it...they're not counted anymore. Now they have to depend on food stamps and welfare to survive. Most people should realize this, things are no better!

How many boomers are retiring every day?

Oh, and you're wrong about people being dropped because of the length of time being unemployed. They're counted if they're actively seeking work.

How many boomers are retiring every day?

Why do you ask a question that has been answered already?
LESS THAN WAS EXPECTED ARE RETIRING, AND SOME OF THOSE WHO HAVE RETIRED ARE RETURNING TO THE WORK FORCE.

If they're actually looking for work, they're considered unemployed by BLS. You didn't answer the question. How many boomers are retiring every day?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Pretty simple folks.

Number of people on welfare = Up
Number of people receiving food stamps = UP
Number of people living in poverty = UP
Unemployment number is down.

Surely even basic amoeba can comprehend what's happening here.

People like pinqy believe that I am making shit up. Could it be that obama's labor department is making shit up? Who has more to lose?

BLS hasn't changed it methods of calculating unemployment since Reagan was in office. You are making shit up, because you a tin foil loon and pathological liar.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How many boomers are retiring every day?

Oh, and you're wrong about people being dropped because of the length of time being unemployed. They're counted if they're actively seeking work.

How many boomers are retiring every day?

Why do you ask a question that has been answered already?
LESS THAN WAS EXPECTED ARE RETIRING, AND SOME OF THOSE WHO HAVE RETIRED ARE RETURNING TO THE WORK FORCE.

If they're actually looking for work, they're considered unemployed by BLS. You didn't answer the question. How many boomers are retiring every day?

Your question was how many boomers retired, your question was answered. Nw do you have another question?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Pretty simple folks.

Number of people on welfare = Up
Number of people receiving food stamps = UP
Number of people living in poverty = UP
Unemployment number is down.

Surely even basic amoeba can comprehend what's happening here.

People like pinqy believe that I am making shit up. Could it be that obama's labor department is making shit up? Who has more to lose?

BLS has never had an Obama appointee in it. And main DOL has nothing to do with BLS operations, only the HR admin stuff. So who at BLS has anything to lose? Nixon tried interfering with BLS and failed.

obama's labor department head was appointed by obama.

 

[kiwiman127]

Jobs are recovering at about the same rate as they did after the 2001 and 1990 recession. The below chart shows that the time-frames of jobs recovery after all recessions since 1948.
Thusly at this point based on the arch of recovery, there isn't much of a difference than the recovery of jobs from the much, much smaller recessions of 1990 and 2001.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Pretty simple folks.

Number of people on welfare = Up
Number of people receiving food stamps = UP
Number of people living in poverty = UP
Unemployment number is down.

Surely even basic amoeba can comprehend what's happening here.

People like pinqy believe that I am making shit up. Could it be that obama's labor department is making shit up? Who has more to lose?

BLS hasn't changed it methods of calculating unemployment since Reagan was in office. You are making shit up, because you a tin foil loon and pathological liar.

Changes were made
Duration of unemployment in the CPS

 

[pinqy]

Pretty simple folks.

Number of people on welfare = Up
Number of people receiving food stamps = UP
Number of people living in poverty = UP
Unemployment number is down.

Surely even basic amoeba can comprehend what's happening here.

People like pinqy believe that I am making shit up. Could it be that obama's labor department is making shit up? Who has more to lose?

BLS hasn't changed it methods of calculating unemployment since Reagan was in office. You are making shit up, because you a tin foil loon and pathological liar.

There were some changes in 1994, including one minor definitional change for Unemployed:

In 1994, major changes to the Current Population Survey (CPS) were introduced, which included a complete redesign of the questionnaire and the use of computer-assisted interviewing for the entire survey. In addition, there were revisions to some of the labor force concepts and definitions, including the implementation of some changes recommended in 1979 by the National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics (NCEUS, also known as the Levitan Commission). Some of the major changes to the survey were:

a) The introduction of a redesigned and automated questionnaire. The CPS questionnaire was totally redesigned in order to obtain more accurate, comprehensive, and relevant
information, and to take advantage of state-of-the-art computer interviewing techniques.

b) The addition of two, more objective, criteria to the definition of discouraged workers. Prior to 1994, to be classified as a discouraged worker, a person must have wanted a
job and been reported as not currently looking because of a belief that no jobs were available or that there were none for which he or she would qualify. Beginning in 1994, persons classified as discouraged must also have looked for a job within the past year (or since their last job, if they worked during the year), and must have been available for work
during the reference week (a direct question on availability was added in 1994; prior to 1994, availability had been inferred from responses to other questions). These changes
were made because the NCEUS and others felt that the previous definition of discouraged workers was too subjective, relying mainly on an individual’s stated desire for a job and
not on prior testing of the labor market.

c) Similarly, the identification of persons employed part time for economic reasons (working less than 35 hours in the reference week because of poor business conditions or because of an inability to find full-time work) was tightened by adding two new criteria for persons who usually work part time: They must want and be available for full-time work. Previously, such information was inferred. (Persons who usually work full time but worked part time for an economic reason during the reference week are assumed to meet these criteria.)

d) Specific questions were added about the expectation of recall for persons who indicate that they are on layoff. To be classified as “on temporary layoff,” persons must expect to be recalled to their jobs. Previously, the questionnaire did not include explicit questions about the expectation of recall.

e) Persons volunteering that they were waiting to start a new job within 30 days must have looked for work in the 4 weeks prior to the survey in order to be classified as unemployed. Previously, such persons did not have to meet the job search requirement in order to be included among the unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

So, no changes as far as actual formula and only minor definition change (and military was removed from the equations)

 

[Dick Tuck]

Why do you ask a question that has been answered already?
LESS THAN WAS EXPECTED ARE RETIRING, AND SOME OF THOSE WHO HAVE RETIRED ARE RETURNING TO THE WORK FORCE.

If they're actually looking for work, they're considered unemployed by BLS. You didn't answer the question. How many boomers are retiring every day?

Your question was how many boomers retired, your question was answered. Nw do you have another question?

How many people are involved in this imaginary conspiracy of yours? How does BLS cook the books?

 

[pinqy]

People like pinqy believe that I am making shit up. Could it be that obama's labor department is making shit up? Who has more to lose?

BLS hasn't changed it methods of calculating unemployment since Reagan was in office. You are making shit up, because you a tin foil loon and pathological liar.

Changes were made
Duration of unemployment in the CPS

But that changed nothing in the calculations. Before, when asking how long a person had been unemployed, the interviewer could not enter anything higher than 2 years. So 3 years, 4 years, etc were all entered as 2 years...basically "two or more years." Since 2011, the interviewer now records the exact number. This change would not affect the UE rate, nor would it affect the median duration of unemployment. The ONLY thing it changed was mean duration of unemployment, making it longer.

So the change affected nothing except mean duration of unemployment by making it longer. Not exactly cooking the books to make things look better.