Predictions For Friday's November Jobs Report

[pinqy]

It's that time of the month! No......not THAT time, Rabbi. It's time for the jobs report. It comes out on Friday.

It has become a ritual over the past five years.....any positive data is met with a swift cry of "labor force participation" and "the real numbers are horrible" from our resident ODS nutbags.

After 68 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS of private sector jobs gains.....what can we expect for November?

My take........215,000 new non farm jobs and an unemployment rate UNDER 5%.

And........GO!

Yeah temporary holiday jobs

it happens every year

Another pinheaded know-it-all who knows nothing about "Seasonal Adjustments."

It's that time of the month! No......not THAT time, Rabbi. It's time for the jobs report. It comes out on Friday.

It has become a ritual over the past five years.....any positive data is met with a swift cry of "labor force participation" and "the real numbers are horrible" from our resident ODS nutbags.

After 68 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS of private sector jobs gains.....what can we expect for November?

My take........215,000 new non farm jobs and an unemployment rate UNDER 5%.

And........GO!

Yeah temporary holiday jobs

it happens every year

Another pinheaded know-it-all who knows nothing about "Seasonal Adjustments."

Funny a guy who calls himself cynic who believes everything the government tells him

But you believed the government when it gave you Bush's UE numbers.
And you gullibly believe everything you hear on GOP hate radio.

This is the thing about the Right, they can simply make up numbers and any numbers that contradict their phony made up numbers are simply rejected as from the government or from Liberals therefore nothing can ever burst their bubble.
But if anything from the government or Liberals supports their position they say "see even the Libs agree with us," thus no data can ever contradict them, it can only agree with them or it is rejected.

No I didn't

You see unlike you I know that UE numbers are always cooked

Oh? How do you know this? I'd be fascinated to see your evidence and your explanation how the "cooking" is done.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Yeah temporary holiday jobs

it happens every year

Another pinheaded know-it-all who knows nothing about "Seasonal Adjustments."

Yeah temporary holiday jobs

it happens every year

Another pinheaded know-it-all who knows nothing about "Seasonal Adjustments."

Funny a guy who calls himself cynic who believes everything the government tells him

But you believed the government when it gave you Bush's UE numbers.
And you gullibly believe everything you hear on GOP hate radio.

This is the thing about the Right, they can simply make up numbers and any numbers that contradict their phony made up numbers are simply rejected as from the government or from Liberals therefore nothing can ever burst their bubble.
But if anything from the government or Liberals supports their position they say "see even the Libs agree with us," thus no data can ever contradict them, it can only agree with them or it is rejected.

No I didn't

You see unlike you I know that UE numbers are always cooked

Oh? How do you know this? I'd be fascinated to see your evidence and your explanation how the "cooking" is done.

Does that mean that you trust the government? Do you believe that they're honest and transparent? Do you believe that there's no way the government would skew the numbers in order to show a better situation? Just curious.

 

[pinqy]

Another pinheaded know-it-all who knows nothing about "Seasonal Adjustments."

Another pinheaded know-it-all who knows nothing about "Seasonal Adjustments."

Funny a guy who calls himself cynic who believes everything the government tells him

But you believed the government when it gave you Bush's UE numbers.
And you gullibly believe everything you hear on GOP hate radio.

This is the thing about the Right, they can simply make up numbers and any numbers that contradict their phony made up numbers are simply rejected as from the government or from Liberals therefore nothing can ever burst their bubble.
But if anything from the government or Liberals supports their position they say "see even the Libs agree with us," thus no data can ever contradict them, it can only agree with them or it is rejected.

No I didn't

You see unlike you I know that UE numbers are always cooked

Oh? How do you know this? I'd be fascinated to see your evidence and your explanation how the "cooking" is done.

Does that mean that you trust the government?

"The government" is not monolithic. It is not a single entity and there are vast differences in the different parts of government. The Bureau of Labor Statistics falls administratively under the Department of Labor, but they are strictly seperated because DoL deals with policy and BLS is forbidden to discuss policy.

Do you believe that they're honest and transparent?

BLS, Census, BEA, and most statistical agencies are. They have no reason not to be.

Do you believe that there's no way the government would skew the numbers in order to show a better situation? Just curious.

I believe many politicians would want to. I know Nixon wanted to, and it is reported that Gingrich tried as well. But it has never happened. And it is practically impossible...there would have to be too many people involved and there is too much oversight and sharing.

Note that no one who claims the numbers are cooked can give any scenario as to how that would be possible.

 

[hortysir]

People aren't spending more, though.
This "Black Friday" was barely gray.
Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of employees were pulled away from their families to go run these shifts that just HAD to be open only to see a drop in sales from last year in the billions

Only because people are spending record numbers of dollars online!
The Right ALWAYS leaves something out when they lie!
Cyber Monday is now Cyber Everyday.

And I've not denied the boost in online sales. So if want to call me liar get your shit straight first. I hope they all only do online ordering. Then only a small fraction of people will be stuck working holidays. We were so slow this thanksgiving that we'll probably close next year.....let Fred and Ethel eat Swanson turkey dinners and

 

[rightwinger]

It's that time of the month! No......not THAT time, Rabbi. It's time for the jobs report. It comes out on Friday.

It has become a ritual over the past five years.....any positive data is met with a swift cry of "labor force participation" and "the real numbers are horrible" from our resident ODS nutbags.

After 68 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS of private sector jobs gains.....what can we expect for November?

My take........215,000 new non farm jobs and an unemployment rate UNDER 5%.

And........GO!

Which again begs the question, why are the Democrats so terrified of an interest rate hike by the Fed?

I think its long overdue...let the market panic for a few weeks, they will get over it

 

[Faun]

it's holiday season, so duh, people get hired.


and as a reminder, again, job 'growth' isn't keeping pace with population growth, so more people are UE now than last year

What about the other 68 months?

That's a great strategy for the GOP to use when the good news comes out Friday though. Good job.

Umm ... that would be a holiday season that's lasted an unprecedented 68 months.

Friday will make 69.

G'head .... this is where you bitch and moan about the labor force participation rate and part time jobs.

I'll repeat for the slow thinkers.

more people are ue b/c job creation is not keeping pace with population growth.

or in other words

you got sold a lie and you don't care to know the truth.

Too had repeating that lie doesn't help you.

 

[Faun]

I predict that yet again, the Obama Administration will cook the numbers, lie about them, and the MSM will push that narrative.

So far I've been right every time.

How are you claiming the administration cooks the number? What is the exact process you're suggesting?

You think I know the exact process that the Obama administration used to make the numbers look better for him? I suppose you are next going to say that because I don't know the exact process, then I must be wrong.

If you don't know how it would be possible, then how can you say it's done? I know how the numbers are calculated and the processes and the handling protocols....it is impossible, for all practical purposes, for the President to have the numbers made to look better. But you're saying it is done. If you don't know how that is possible, you must have very strong evidence that it is done. What evidence do you have (no, "common sense" and "observation" are not evidence) and how do you think it's done?

He was told that by the thousands and thousands of Muslims in New Jersey who were seen cheering by Donald Trump on 9.11.

 

[Faun]

It's that time of the month! No......not THAT time, Rabbi. It's time for the jobs report. It comes out on Friday.

It has become a ritual over the past five years.....any positive data is met with a swift cry of "labor force participation" and "the real numbers are horrible" from our resident ODS nutbags.

After 68 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS of private sector jobs gains.....what can we expect for November?

My take........215,000 new non farm jobs and an unemployment rate UNDER 5%.

And........GO!

Yeah temporary holiday jobs

it happens every year

You still know nothing about polling, huh? Google "seasonally adjusted" and educate yourself.

 

[Faun]

It's that time of the month! No......not THAT time, Rabbi. It's time for the jobs report. It comes out on Friday.

It has become a ritual over the past five years.....any positive data is met with a swift cry of "labor force participation" and "the real numbers are horrible" from our resident ODS nutbags.

After 68 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS of private sector jobs gains.....what can we expect for November?

My take........215,000 new non farm jobs and an unemployment rate UNDER 5%.

And........GO!

Yeah temporary holiday jobs

it happens every year

Another pinheaded know-it-all who knows nothing about "Seasonal Adjustments."

It's that time of the month! No......not THAT time, Rabbi. It's time for the jobs report. It comes out on Friday.

It has become a ritual over the past five years.....any positive data is met with a swift cry of "labor force participation" and "the real numbers are horrible" from our resident ODS nutbags.

After 68 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS of private sector jobs gains.....what can we expect for November?

My take........215,000 new non farm jobs and an unemployment rate UNDER 5%.

And........GO!

Yeah temporary holiday jobs

it happens every year

Another pinheaded know-it-all who knows nothing about "Seasonal Adjustments."

Funny a guy who calls himself cynic who believes everything the government tells him

So where do you get your employment figures from?

 

[pinqy]

Now, the Current Population Survey uses the week that contains the 12th as the reference week.
Gallup estimated 6.1% for the week of October 12-18 and 5.6% for the week of November 9-15.
Those are not seasonally adjusted. So while a large drop, it's about what one would expect this time of year.

So I predict that the official, seasonally adjusted, UE rate will remain at 5% for November.

New Jobs? I'd say 250,000 +/- 20,000

 

[PredFan]

I predict that yet again, the Obama Administration will cook the numbers, lie about them, and the MSM will push that narrative.

So far I've been right every time.

How are you claiming the administration cooks the number? What is the exact process you're suggesting?

You think I know the exact process that the Obama administration used to make the numbers look better for him? I suppose you are next going to say that because I don't know the exact process, then I must be wrong.

If you don't know how it would be possible, then how can you say it's done? I know how the numbers are calculated and the processes and the handling protocols....it is impossible, for all practical purposes, for the President to have the numbers made to look better. But you're saying it is done. If you don't know how that is possible, you must have very strong evidence that it is done. What evidence do you have (no, "common sense" and "observation" are not evidence) and how do you think it's done?

Let's see. How do I explain to someone who cannot think? Let me put it this way to you. I don't know how NASA put a man on the moon, but I know they did. Does that help you?

 

[pinqy]

I predict that yet again, the Obama Administration will cook the numbers, lie about them, and the MSM will push that narrative.

So far I've been right every time.

How are you claiming the administration cooks the number? What is the exact process you're suggesting?

You think I know the exact process that the Obama administration used to make the numbers look better for him? I suppose you are next going to say that because I don't know the exact process, then I must be wrong.

If you don't know how it would be possible, then how can you say it's done? I know how the numbers are calculated and the processes and the handling protocols....it is impossible, for all practical purposes, for the President to have the numbers made to look better. But you're saying it is done. If you don't know how that is possible, you must have very strong evidence that it is done. What evidence do you have (no, "common sense" and "observation" are not evidence) and how do you think it's done?

Let's see. How do I explain to someone who cannot think? Let me put it this way to you. I don't know how NASA put a man on the moon, but I know they did. Does that help you?

But HOW do you know BLS is cooking the numbers? And you do know that NASA used a rocket. And you have seen specific evidence. But where's your evidence that the numbers are cooked?

I'm afraid you're the one not thinking if you're just making an assertion without any thought or logic behind it.

 

[PredFan]

I predict that yet again, the Obama Administration will cook the numbers, lie about them, and the MSM will push that narrative.

So far I've been right every time.

How are you claiming the administration cooks the number? What is the exact process you're suggesting?

You think I know the exact process that the Obama administration used to make the numbers look better for him? I suppose you are next going to say that because I don't know the exact process, then I must be wrong.

If you don't know how it would be possible, then how can you say it's done? I know how the numbers are calculated and the processes and the handling protocols....it is impossible, for all practical purposes, for the President to have the numbers made to look better. But you're saying it is done. If you don't know how that is possible, you must have very strong evidence that it is done. What evidence do you have (no, "common sense" and "observation" are not evidence) and how do you think it's done?

Let's see. How do I explain to someone who cannot think? Let me put it this way to you. I don't know how NASA put a man on the moon, but I know they did. Does that help you?

But HOW do you know BLS is cooking the numbers? And you do know that NASA used a rocket. And you have seen specific evidence. But where's your evidence that the numbers are cooked?

I'm afraid you're the one not thinking if you're just making an assertion without any thought or logic behind it.

NOW, you asked the right question. I can't give you specifics but I can give you an example. The administration eliminates a lot of unemployed people from the numbers. One large group not included is people who have quit looking for work. They fall off the radar and are not included in the numbers. That is just one, there are more. The end result is that the number given to us by the Obama Administration is a lot lower than the actual number.

 

[pinqy]

How are you claiming the administration cooks the number? What is the exact process you're suggesting?

You think I know the exact process that the Obama administration used to make the numbers look better for him? I suppose you are next going to say that because I don't know the exact process, then I must be wrong.

If you don't know how it would be possible, then how can you say it's done? I know how the numbers are calculated and the processes and the handling protocols....it is impossible, for all practical purposes, for the President to have the numbers made to look better. But you're saying it is done. If you don't know how that is possible, you must have very strong evidence that it is done. What evidence do you have (no, "common sense" and "observation" are not evidence) and how do you think it's done?

Let's see. How do I explain to someone who cannot think? Let me put it this way to you. I don't know how NASA put a man on the moon, but I know they did. Does that help you?

But HOW do you know BLS is cooking the numbers? And you do know that NASA used a rocket. And you have seen specific evidence. But where's your evidence that the numbers are cooked?

I'm afraid you're the one not thinking if you're just making an assertion without any thought or logic behind it.

NOW, you asked the right question. I can't give you specifics but I can give you an example. The administration eliminates a lot of unemployed people from the numbers.

No they don't. The administration has no access to the numbers. It's all BLS and the Census...nobody from the White House.

One large group not included is people who have quit looking for work. They fall off the radar and are not included in the numbers. [/quote
How is that "cooking"? The definition of unemployed has always been those looking for work. Having a definition and sticking with it can hardly be called cooking the books.

That is just one, there are more.

Well, sure...children under 16, prisoners, people in nursing homes. Unemployed means available to start work immediately and actively trying to find work. Nobody includes people not trying to work

Quote]The end result is that the number given to us by the Obama Administration is a lot lower than the actual number.

The actual number of what? What definition are you using and what makes it actual? BLS follows international standards. The Obama administration has nothing to do with the definitions and certainly haven't changed any.

 

[PredFan]

You think I know the exact process that the Obama administration used to make the numbers look better for him? I suppose you are next going to say that because I don't know the exact process, then I must be wrong.

If you don't know how it would be possible, then how can you say it's done? I know how the numbers are calculated and the processes and the handling protocols....it is impossible, for all practical purposes, for the President to have the numbers made to look better. But you're saying it is done. If you don't know how that is possible, you must have very strong evidence that it is done. What evidence do you have (no, "common sense" and "observation" are not evidence) and how do you think it's done?

Let's see. How do I explain to someone who cannot think? Let me put it this way to you. I don't know how NASA put a man on the moon, but I know they did. Does that help you?

But HOW do you know BLS is cooking the numbers? And you do know that NASA used a rocket. And you have seen specific evidence. But where's your evidence that the numbers are cooked?

I'm afraid you're the one not thinking if you're just making an assertion without any thought or logic behind it.

NOW, you asked the right question. I can't give you specifics but I can give you an example. The administration eliminates a lot of unemployed people from the numbers.

No they don't. The administration has no access to the numbers. It's all BLS and the Census...nobody from the White House.

One large group not included is people who have quit looking for work. They fall off the radar and are not included in the numbers. [/quote
How is that "cooking"? The definition of unemployed has always been those looking for work. Having a definition and sticking with it can hardly be called cooking the books.

That is just one, there are more.

Well, sure...children under 16, prisoners, people in nursing homes. Unemployed means available to start work immediately and actively trying to find work. Nobody includes people not trying to work

Quote]The end result is that the number given to us by the Obama Administration is a lot lower than the actual number.

The actual number of what? What definition are you using and what makes it actual? BLS follows international standards. The Obama administration has nothing to do with the definitions and certainly haven't changed any.

Bull shit, educate yourself. One of the first things Obama did when he took office was put BLS under the executive branch.

Look, I don't care if you believe me or not. it's obvious that you are like every other left wing nut job here and cares only to win and doesn't care about facts. I try to educate you people, if you prefer to stay stupid then that's your own problem.

Dismissed.

 

[Dot Com]

People aren't spending more, though.
This "Black Friday" was barely gray.
Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of employees were pulled away from their families to go run these shifts that just HAD to be open only to see a drop in sales from last year in the billions

Only because people are spending record numbers of dollars online!
The Right ALWAYS leaves something out when they lie!
Cyber Monday is now Cyber Everyday.

 

[pinqy]

If you don't know how it would be possible, then how can you say it's done? I know how the numbers are calculated and the processes and the handling protocols....it is impossible, for all practical purposes, for the President to have the numbers made to look better. But you're saying it is done. If you don't know how that is possible, you must have very strong evidence that it is done. What evidence do you have (no, "common sense" and "observation" are not evidence) and how do you think it's done?

Let's see. How do I explain to someone who cannot think? Let me put it this way to you. I don't know how NASA put a man on the moon, but I know they did. Does that help you?

But HOW do you know BLS is cooking the numbers? And you do know that NASA used a rocket. And you have seen specific evidence. But where's your evidence that the numbers are cooked?

I'm afraid you're the one not thinking if you're just making an assertion without any thought or logic behind it.

NOW, you asked the right question. I can't give you specifics but I can give you an example. The administration eliminates a lot of unemployed people from the numbers.

No they don't. The administration has no access to the numbers. It's all BLS and the Census...nobody from the White House.

One large group not included is people who have quit looking for work. They fall off the radar and are not included in the numbers. [/quote
How is that "cooking"? The definition of unemployed has always been those looking for work. Having a definition and sticking with it can hardly be called cooking the books.

That is just one, there are more.

Well, sure...children under 16, prisoners, people in nursing homes. Unemployed means available to start work immediately and actively trying to find work. Nobody includes people not trying to work

Quote]The end result is that the number given to us by the Obama Administration is a lot lower than the actual number.

The actual number of what? What definition are you using and what makes it actual? BLS follows international standards. The Obama administration has nothing to do with the definitions and certainly haven't changed any.

Bull shit, educate yourself. One of the first things Obama did when he took office was put BLS under the executive branch.

Look, I don't care if you believe me or not. it's obvious that you are like every other left wing nut job here and cares only to win and doesn't care about facts. I try to educate you people, if you prefer to stay stupid then that's your own problem.

Dismissed.

Technically, it's always been under the Executive Branch; under department of Commerce, then Labor. But Obama didn't change its status and it's certainly not under White House control. Hell, the commissioner of BLS for Obama's first three years was Dr Keith Hall, who was appointed by Bush.

You don't look good when you give false information and claim you're trying to educate others.

 

[rightwinger]

it's holiday season, so duh, people get hired.

Which is why the numbers are seasonally adjusted. The unadjusted change in jobs for Sept-Oct was 1,152,000, adjusted down to 271,000 because most of those jobs were because hiring always goes up in October.

and as a reminder, again, job 'growth' isn't keeping pace with population growth, so more people are UE now than last year

No, the number of unemployed has gone down by about 1 million. And the employment-population ratio has held steady for over a year, so employment is keeping up with population growth....October last year it was 59.5%, and it was 59.5% this October.

so after 7 years....

That is nothing to cheer about.

Who said anything to cheer about? Again....you are WRONG to say that growth has not kept up with population growth. It has.

Another lame rehash of labor participation rate

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'll repeat for the slow thinkers.

more people are ue b/c job creation is not keeping pace with population growth.

or in other words

you got sold a lie and you don't care to know the truth.

No matter how many times you tell it, it will STILL be a lie,

or in other words

you got sold a lie and you don't care to know the truth.

Jobs Calculator

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

~ 5 million more jobs while ~7 million more on ue

 

[Two Thumbs]

it's holiday season, so duh, people get hired.

Which is why the numbers are seasonally adjusted. The unadjusted change in jobs for Sept-Oct was 1,152,000, adjusted down to 271,000 because most of those jobs were because hiring always goes up in October.

and as a reminder, again, job 'growth' isn't keeping pace with population growth, so more people are UE now than last year

No, the number of unemployed has gone down by about 1 million. And the employment-population ratio has held steady for over a year, so employment is keeping up with population growth....October last year it was 59.5%, and it was 59.5% this October.

so after 7 years....

That is nothing to cheer about.

Who said anything to cheer about? Again....you are WRONG to say that growth has not kept up with population growth. It has.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

it hasn't