The unemployment rate DID NOT FALL / ITS ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS PEOPLE

[Inthemiddle]

No....you haven't been.

Oh yes, the "NO, YOU" argument is always a favorite of the willfully ignorant.

Needless to say, when something good happens it's Obama. When something bad happens, he's never to blame.

And this is better than the conservative mantra of "if it's bad it's Obama, if it's good it had nothing to do with him"? This same partisan song has been sung pretty much forever. It's old, and it's actually entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Let's move on.

Did you see where it was explained earlier how the unemployment rate is calculated? It is NOT based on who is collecting unemployment, as you've claimed. The fact that you are making such a claim now shows that you haven't been paying attention to the thread. I would suggest that you go back and actually read the thread first, but if you do you'll realize how incredibly embarrassed you should feel for saying such a silly thing. So I recommend NOT reading the thread and avoiding it altogether from now on.

What's good and what's bad is also a matter of interpretation.

I see. So YOUR interpretation of what is good and bad and who gets credit and blame is the one we should be listening to. Everyone else who has an interpretation that doesn't agree with yours should be insulted.

 

[Annie]

Because not including people that have simply given up is completely asinine. Period.

So it's less asinine to count people as unemployed who choose not to work because they stay at home with the kids, or people who don't work because they are disabled and incapable, or people who don't work because they are retired, or people who choose not to work because they are entitled trust fund kids? What would be the good of counting these people in the unemployment roles?

Your projecting now. He didn't say any of those groups should be counted.

Prove your in the middle and realize that not counting people who have given up is bs.

I don't know if this has been posted, but it may help:

November jobs report: 7 reasons why it’s better but still terrible « The Enterprise Blog

November jobs report: 7 reasons why it’s better but still terrible

By James Pethokoukis
December 2, 2011, 10:37 am

* A A A

When the U.S. economy grows as slowly as this one has for the past year, history suggests there’s a 70 percent chance of recession happening in the upcoming year. But maybe we will be in the 30 percent group. The November jobs report out today is another data point showing the economy continues to grow, although not by very much. The U-3 unemployment rate fell to 8.6 percent (the lowest since March 2009), according to the Labor Department, as nonfarm payrolls rose 120,000 last month. Revisions to the employment numbers for September and October to show 72,000 more jobs created than first reported. A bit more of a drill down from Reuters:

1. All the increase in nonfarm payrolls in November again came from the private sector, where employment rose 140,000 after increasing 117,000 in October.

2. Government employment fell by 20,000. Public payrolls have dropped in 10 of the past 11 months as state and local governments have tightened their belts.

3. Outside of government, job gains were almost across the board, with retail surging 49,800.

4. Elsewhere, construction payrolls fell 12,000 after losing 15,000 jobs in October. Factory jobs edged up 2,000, with most of the gains coming from automakers.

5. Health care and social assistance hiring rose 18,700 after adding 30,300 job in October. Temporary hiring — seen as a harbinger for future hiring – increased 22,300 after adding 15,800 jobs last month.

1. The red flag here is the sharp drop in the size of the labor force versus October. The participation rate fell from an already low 64.2 percent to 64.0 percent. In a strong jobs recovery, that number should be rising as more people look for work. If the labor force participation rate were back at its January 2009 level, the U-3 rate would be 11.0 percent.

2. As it is, the broader U-6 rate — which includes part timers who wish they were full timers — is still a sky-high 15.6 percent, down from 16.2 percent last month.

3. The broadest measure of employment is the employment/population ratio and it rose to 58.5 percent from 58.4 percent. But as MKM Partners notes: “The employment/population ratio has averaged 58.4 since December 2009, meaning there has essentially been no real progress on employment in two years’ time. … In other words, we are not growing fast enough to reduce the so-called output gap/labor market slack.”

4. The workweek was flat, at 34.3 hours in November, but aggregate hours worked actually fell 0.1 percent after two months of relatively strong gains. (MKM)

5. Nominal wages also slipped in November for the first time since August. MKM: “The product of hours worked and wages paid is a proxy for nominal income, and it has decelerated to a 2.6% annualized rate over the last six months from just over a 4% rate this summer (prior to the sharp tightening in financial conditions). … While the economic data have been better of late, we remain concerned that we are seeing a bounce back from a series of supply shocks earlier in the year that may not be sustained against the foliage of tighter financial conditions, a deep recession in Europe and a sharp slowdown in China and emerging-market countries.”

6. We may not have seen the last of the unemployment 9-handle given a likely growth slowdown next year. As IHS Global Insight notes:

Third-quarter GDP growth was revised down to 2.0% only because inventories fell. Very lean inventories will support future production growth, in order to keep pace with sales. We have upgraded our fourth-quarter growth forecast to 2.6%, from 2.0%. But we still expect growth to slip back into the 1.5–2.0% range in 2012. Domestic fiscal policy remains contractionary, slower global growth will weigh on exports, and the Eurozone financial crisis will mean at least some tightening of credit conditions in the United States. But the better recent domestic news means we have upgraded 2012 growth to 1.8%, from 1.6% (2011 growth now rounds down to 1.7%, instead of rounding up to 1.8%).

7. This chart from MKM illustrates how tightening financial condition may well drag on the labor market going forward:

Go to site to see chart.

 

[Annie]

While the government reports by the U3 definitions, they do keep track of others:

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force


U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force


U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)


U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers


U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force


U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force


NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

 

[Billy000]

Seriously, are we all so stupid as to believe the numbers without checking into the details? The amount of people counted as unemployed fell because they no longer qualify for benefits. Therefore the govt has no way to track them. Their benefits expired, nothing more.

Snip-
The Labor Department reported before the market opened that the unemployment rate fell to 8.6 percent last month, the lowest level in 2 1/2 years. Economists had expected the rate to stay at 9 percent. But a key reason the unemployment rate fell so much was that more than 300,000 people gave up looking for work and were no longer counted as unemployed.

Today's Stock Market News - DailyFinance

Also seasonal temporary employment accounted for more than 50000 of the so called new hires. Those jobs will be gone in a month.

If UE benefits are extended again those not currently counted as unemployed will once again be counted resulting in a sharp increase in the UE numbers.



Obama is playing everyone for fools and many are falling for it. Sad

I really can't stand threads like this. There always has to be some jackass that likes to tout that the entire forum is being naive and misguided based upon "gray" good news.

Yes, Gramps, we get it - the latest economic news actually isn't what it appears. We didn't need you to tell us that.

Obviously many do otherwise there wouldn't be so many "look what my God, Obama, accomplished" threads posted on the subject.

Okay I saw only 1 thread that was thanking Obama for the economic news. That really isn't enough.

 

[The T]

While the government reports by the U3 definitions, they do keep track of others:

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force


U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force


U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)


U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers


U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force


U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force


NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Why the manipulations and definitions with the data? What happened to real numbers and the truth?

 

[Annie]

While the government reports by the U3 definitions, they do keep track of others:

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force


U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force


U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)


U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers


U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force


U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force


NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Why the manipulations and definitions with the data? What happened to real numbers and the truth?

It's the definitions, that's all. Reported is the U3, what is more 'real' imo is U6.

 

[The T]

While the government reports by the U3 definitions, they do keep track of others:

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Why the manipulations and definitions with the data? What happened to real numbers and the truth?

It's the definitions, that's all. Reported is the U3, what is more 'real' imo is U6.

So why not report it? Answer? The regime (whomever is in power) can't afford to have the truth reported.

I'm about sick to death of this government and thier manipulation.

 

[FA_Q2]

Because not including people that have simply given up is completely asinine. Period.

So it's less asinine to count people as unemployed who choose not to work because they stay at home with the kids, or people who don't work because they are disabled and incapable, or people who don't work because they are retired, or people who choose not to work because they are entitled trust fund kids? What would be the good of counting these people in the unemployment roles?

Nice that you cut the second part of my post that would take care of over half those groups. I specified

PEOPLE WHO GAVE UP

There, bigger letters. Maybe you can see them now. Retired - they did not give up. Disabled, nope. Being incapable is not giving up.

Tell me, what good is not counting people that simply stopped looking for a job because it is nigh impossible for them to find one?

 

[Annie]

Why the manipulations and definitions with the data? What happened to real numbers and the truth?

It's the definitions, that's all. Reported is the U3, what is more 'real' imo is U6.

So why not report it? Answer? The regime (whomever is in power) can't afford to have the truth reported.

I'm about sick to death of this government and thier manipulation.

As I stated, every month you or the press can find all the numbers. I too am sick of the government, but that doesn't alter the fact that the numbers ARE there.

 

[The T]

It's the definitions, that's all. Reported is the U3, what is more 'real' imo is U6.

So why not report it? Answer? The regime (whomever is in power) can't afford to have the truth reported.

I'm about sick to death of this government and thier manipulation.

As I stated, every month you or the press can find all the numbers. I too am sick of the government, but that doesn't alter the fact that the numbers ARE there.

True.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I really can't stand threads like this. There always has to be some jackass that likes to tout that the entire forum is being naive and misguided based upon "gray" good news.

Yes, Gramps, we get it - the latest economic news actually isn't what it appears. We didn't need you to tell us that.

Obviously many do otherwise there wouldn't be so many "look what my God, Obama, accomplished" threads posted on the subject.

Okay I saw only 1 thread that was thanking Obama for the economic news. That really isn't enough.

Typical loon "IF I DON'T SEE IT IT ISN'T REAL" *closes eyes*

 

[Inthemiddle]

Why the manipulations and definitions with the data? What happened to real numbers and the truth?

It's the definitions, that's all. Reported is the U3, what is more 'real' imo is U6.

So why not report it? Answer? The regime (whomever is in power) can't afford to have the truth reported.

I'm about sick to death of this government and thier manipulation.

Oh, shut the fuck up. That's what's always been reported. It has nothing to do with whomever is in office at the time, it's merely the standard that has been used.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's his fault.

One of the primary reasons for unemployment staying so high is the feeling of uncertainty in the job and Obama is the primary cause of that. His rhetoric, his lack of leadership, his refusal to do his job, grid-lock in Congress.

You simply refuse to recognize how much he effects it.

Just so you know, I'm going to bookmark this comment, and one day down the road when you try to claim that the President doesn't have much control over the economy in the first place, I'm going to bring this up. It's absolutely preposterous to claim that a President has such sweeping control over the economy, and that he is responsible for the decisions of others. It wasn't true under Bush, it wasn't true under Obama, and it won't be true under Romney. Yes, President's can set agendas that effect the economy, but the sweeping control you are suggesting is absurd.

Actually under Bush he did have some control. But only because he had a Congress that was willing to work with him. Once the GOP lost Congress Bush's ability to exert influence over the economy vanished.....mainly because Bush wasn't constantly giving speeches about raising taxes and other such nonsense. He was solid and the Dems constantly harped about how fucked up the economy was. Eventually it crashed, under their watch.......and Bush's unfortunately.

Uncertainty is the key. Obama is missing in action. He hasn't passed a budget since he's been in office. He constantly threatens to raise taxes. His regulatory czar is screwing with job-creators by instituting recklessly expensive regulations. Something must be done and Obama is doing nothing. Bush didn't project the image of a radical trying to screw with the system like Obama does. No employer is willing to stick his neck out under the current circumstances.

The reason you can't see this is because the thought never crosses your mind. It's so crazy. To think that Obama and the Dems would purposely sabotage the economy. However you'll believe it if they lie and try to say the GOP is doing it instead.

Now the Dems are trying to claim the economy is fixing itself (through no actions of their own). I guess if you'll buy the other shit you'll buy this load of crap too. Anyone who argues otherwise is labeled a Chicken Little.

 

[Full-Auto]

Obviously many do otherwise there wouldn't be so many "look what my God, Obama, accomplished" threads posted on the subject.

Okay I saw only 1 thread that was thanking Obama for the economic news. That really isn't enough.

Typical loon "IF I DON'T SEE IT IT ISN'T REAL" *closes eyes*

They should be using hard net numbers. A simple equation for population increase.

I remember years ago when I was surveyed. It ticked me off, My time was to valuable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Of course, since the government is the only entity that can actually employ people. I mean, those evil corporations and evil business men are only out to destroy jobs....

Does anyone here have any idea what the above combination of words is supposed to mean?

I repeat:

278,000 government jobs lost in the past year. Why aren't you conservatives praising Obama for that?

It took the guy 35 months to lower the unemployment numbers 6 tenths of one percent. Aren't you proud.

It took Reagan 58 months.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's the definitions, that's all. Reported is the U3, what is more 'real' imo is U6.

So why not report it? Answer? The regime (whomever is in power) can't afford to have the truth reported.

I'm about sick to death of this government and thier manipulation.

Oh, shut the fuck up. That's what's always been reported. It has nothing to do with whomever is in office at the time, it's merely the standard that has been used.

You STFU Urkel.

 

[mudwhistle]

Does anyone here have any idea what the above combination of words is supposed to mean?

I repeat:

278,000 government jobs lost in the past year. Why aren't you conservatives praising Obama for that?

It took the guy 35 months to lower the unemployment numbers 6 tenths of one percent. Aren't you proud.

It took Reagan 58 months.

To do what??

Show us a graph.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
It's the definitions, that's all. Reported is the U3, what is more 'real' imo is U6.

U-6 was down 6 tenths of a percent, more than U-3 was down.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Your projecting now. He didn't say any of those groups should be counted.

Prove your in the middle and realize that not counting people who have given up is bs.

I'm not projecting, I'm merely pointing out the result of his suggestion. There is a simple classification to define the size of the work force. It is the combination of people how are employed and people who are not employed and not looking. If we were to include people who are not looking, that would include stay at home parents who have no interest in working, and all the other people I mentioned above. I do agree, people who would want to work but have simply grown tired of looking for work in vain are relevant and important to note. And there are other data that address those figures as well. But to call the U-3 asinine is itself an asinine claim. Most of the time, the U-3 is a perfectly good metric to use to gauge unemployment, and it's been the official measure for a long time now. It's just that the current times are somewhat unique.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It took the guy 35 months to lower the unemployment numbers 6 tenths of one percent. Aren't you proud.

It took Reagan 58 months.

To do what??

Show us a graph.

I'd be glad to right after you answer the following question honestly:

Why didn't you ask the other guy for a graph?