Unemployment falls to 8.3%

[edthecynic]

Odd that doesnt equal the number reported.

Reported by whom?
A bunch of pathological liars on the Right, or BLS, those are the BLS numbers for the last 2 months. Post your source for the 2.3 million jobs lost lie and I'll post the BLS link to the truth.

Why do you always play the role of intentionally stupid?

Answer that and I will answer yours,

Hint I didnt make the claim but questioned yours.

Now this is usually were you tuck tail.

Grow a pair.

And you didn't question the 2.3 million lie so in questioning ONLY my numbers you accepted the 2.3 million lie and therefore you own the 2.3 million lie.

 

[edthecynic]

You mean that this is worse than what it really is? Pray tell where are the real numbers, and how do we hide the 2.3 million jobs lost in the last 2 months?

CON$ just can't stop themselves from lying!!!

Jobs increased by 1.023 million over the last two months from 140,614,000 to 141,637,000.

Actually, you're wrong. You're citing the change in EMPLOYMENT, from the Household Survey.

"JOBS" always refers to the Establishment Survey (non-farm payroll).

So JOBS went from 131,963,000 in November to 132,409,000 in Jan, an increase of 446,000

The Establishment survey is bigger, more accurate, but excludes agriculture, the self-employed, domestic servents, and unpaid family workers. Since it's jobs, not people, that are counted, multiple job holders are counted twice.

The Household Survey measures people and includes everyone (except military).

One more time...there are TWO surveys released in the same report:
The Current Employment Statistics Survey: JOBS
The Current Population Survey: Unemployment, Labor Force (including total employment).

You are right, of course that there was no loss of 2.3 million jobs.

You are correct, I was using the household survey, and I stand corrected. But I have no idea what survey the was using for his 2.3 million lie.

Could you please post the link to the jobs survey so I can bookmark it.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Conservative]

Reported by whom?
A bunch of pathological liars on the Right, or BLS, those are the BLS numbers for the last 2 months. Post your source for the 2.3 million jobs lost lie and I'll post the BLS link to the truth.

Why do you always play the role of intentionally stupid?

Answer that and I will answer yours,

Hint I didnt make the claim but questioned yours.

Now this is usually were you tuck tail.

Grow a pair.

And you didn't question the 2.3 million lie so in questioning ONLY my numbers you accepted the 2.3 million lie and therefore you own the 2.3 million lie.

dance, Baryshnikov, dance!

 

[pinqy]

CON$ just can't stop themselves from lying!!!

Jobs increased by 1.023 million over the last two months from 140,614,000 to 141,637,000.

Actually, you're wrong. You're citing the change in EMPLOYMENT, from the Household Survey.

"JOBS" always refers to the Establishment Survey (non-farm payroll).

So JOBS went from 131,963,000 in November to 132,409,000 in Jan, an increase of 446,000

The Establishment survey is bigger, more accurate, but excludes agriculture, the self-employed, domestic servents, and unpaid family workers. Since it's jobs, not people, that are counted, multiple job holders are counted twice.

The Household Survey measures people and includes everyone (except military).

One more time...there are TWO surveys released in the same report:
The Current Employment Statistics Survey: JOBS
The Current Population Survey: Unemployment, Labor Force (including total employment).

You are right, of course that there was no loss of 2.3 million jobs.

You are correct, I was using the household survey, and I stand corrected. But I have no idea what survey the was using for his 2.3 million lie.

Could you please post the link to the jobs survey so I can bookmark it.
Thanks in advance.

It's the same report as Unemployment: Employment Situation
The A tables are the CPS and the B tables are the CES.

 

[pinqy]

CON$ just can't stop themselves from lying!!!

Jobs increased by 1.023 million over the last two months from 140,614,000 to 141,637,000.

Actually, you're wrong. You're citing the change in EMPLOYMENT, from the Household Survey.

"JOBS" always refers to the Establishment Survey (non-farm payroll).

So JOBS went from 131,963,000 in November to 132,409,000 in Jan, an increase of 446,000

The Establishment survey is bigger, more accurate, but excludes agriculture, the self-employed, domestic servents, and unpaid family workers. Since it's jobs, not people, that are counted, multiple job holders are counted twice.

The Household Survey measures people and includes everyone (except military).

One more time...there are TWO surveys released in the same report:
The Current Employment Statistics Survey: JOBS
The Current Population Survey: Unemployment, Labor Force (including total employment).

You are right, of course that there was no loss of 2.3 million jobs.

edthecynic just can't stop himself from lying!!!

Wasn't a lie...just a common error. And it still supported his claim of an increase as opposed to the false claim of a decrease.

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, you're wrong. You're citing the change in EMPLOYMENT, from the Household Survey.

"JOBS" always refers to the Establishment Survey (non-farm payroll).

So JOBS went from 131,963,000 in November to 132,409,000 in Jan, an increase of 446,000

The Establishment survey is bigger, more accurate, but excludes agriculture, the self-employed, domestic servents, and unpaid family workers. Since it's jobs, not people, that are counted, multiple job holders are counted twice.

The Household Survey measures people and includes everyone (except military).

One more time...there are TWO surveys released in the same report:
The Current Employment Statistics Survey: JOBS
The Current Population Survey: Unemployment, Labor Force (including total employment).

You are right, of course that there was no loss of 2.3 million jobs.

You are correct, I was using the household survey, and I stand corrected. But I have no idea what survey the was using for his 2.3 million lie.

Could you please post the link to the jobs survey so I can bookmark it.
Thanks in advance.

It's the same report as Unemployment: Employment Situation
The A tables are the CPS and the B tables are the CES.

Thanks again, I was using table A-1.

 

[Katzndogz]

The recovery continues....

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- American employers substantially stepped up their hiring in January, bringing the unemployment rate down for the fifth month in a row.

Employers added 243,000 jobs in January, the Labor Department reported Friday, marking a pick-up in hiring from December, when the economy added 203,000 jobs.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 8.3%. That is the lowest since February 2009.

Job growth was much stronger than expected. Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had forecast 130,000 jobs added in the month, and that the unemployment rate likely ticked up to 8.6%.

January jobs report: Hiring ramps up, unemployment falls - Feb. 3, 2012

Well now, how come it is that I am still seeing more and more people out of work, in fact if anything it's gotten worse in my neck of the woods. Could it be that people have fallen off the unemployment roles and are no longer counted???? Oh nooooooooooooooo, that would be false reporting. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLL

You too!

So am I seeing more and more people out of work. Democrats have to stick with statistics because statistics are so easily manipulated. It's all faked. If we knew how bad it really was, obama woudn't have a chance at all.

 

[pinqy]

The recovery continues....

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- American employers substantially stepped up their hiring in January, bringing the unemployment rate down for the fifth month in a row.

Employers added 243,000 jobs in January, the Labor Department reported Friday, marking a pick-up in hiring from December, when the economy added 203,000 jobs.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 8.3%. That is the lowest since February 2009.

Job growth was much stronger than expected. Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had forecast 130,000 jobs added in the month, and that the unemployment rate likely ticked up to 8.6%.

January jobs report: Hiring ramps up, unemployment falls - Feb. 3, 2012

Well now, how come it is that I am still seeing more and more people out of work, in fact if anything it's gotten worse in my neck of the woods. Could it be that people have fallen off the unemployment roles and are no longer counted???? Oh nooooooooooooooo, that would be false reporting. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLL

You too!

So am I seeing more and more people out of work. Democrats have to stick with statistics because statistics are so easily manipulated. It's all faked. If we knew how bad it really was, obama woudn't have a chance at all.

So both of your local area casual observations give a more accurate picture of a nationwide survey designed to cover every inch of the country? Really, that's your belief?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well now, how come it is that I am still seeing more and more people out of work, in fact if anything it's gotten worse in my neck of the woods. Could it be that people have fallen off the unemployment roles and are no longer counted???? Oh nooooooooooooooo, that would be false reporting. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLL

You too!

So am I seeing more and more people out of work. Democrats have to stick with statistics because statistics are so easily manipulated. It's all faked. If we knew how bad it really was, obama woudn't have a chance at all.

So both of your local area casual observations give a more accurate picture of a nationwide survey designed to cover every inch of the country? Really, that's your belief?

It's not only in their neck of the woods, mine too. Just on the road I live on their's at least 18 homes out of 50 that has someone living there out of work. One man had to sale his home and move back to Wisconsin.

 

[edthecynic]

You too!

So am I seeing more and more people out of work. Democrats have to stick with statistics because statistics are so easily manipulated. It's all faked. If we knew how bad it really was, obama woudn't have a chance at all.

So both of your local area casual observations give a more accurate picture of a nationwide survey designed to cover every inch of the country? Really, that's your belief?

It's not only in their neck of the woods, mine too. Just on the road I live on their's at least 18 homes out of 50 that has someone living there out of work. One man had to sale his home and move back to Wisconsin.

Gee, where I live everybody is working and many are buying or building vacation homes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So both of your local area casual observations give a more accurate picture of a nationwide survey designed to cover every inch of the country? Really, that's your belief?

It's not only in their neck of the woods, mine too. Just on the road I live on their's at least 18 homes out of 50 that has someone living there out of work. One man had to sale his home and move back to Wisconsin.

Gee, where I live everybody is working and many are buying or building vacation homes.

I wasn't joking ass hat. OH by the way are you going to acknowledge that you lied in this thread? Then tried to make it look as if I edited your reply?

 

[pinqy]

You too!

So am I seeing more and more people out of work. Democrats have to stick with statistics because statistics are so easily manipulated. It's all faked. If we knew how bad it really was, obama woudn't have a chance at all.

So both of your local area casual observations give a more accurate picture of a nationwide survey designed to cover every inch of the country? Really, that's your belief?

It's not only in their neck of the woods, mine too. Just on the road I live on their's at least 18 homes out of 50 that has someone living there out of work. One man had to sale his home and move back to Wisconsin.

Some areas are at Depression level Unemployment....
El Centro, CA 26.8
Yuma, AZ 23.1
Merced, CA 18.7
Yuba City , CA 18.1
Fresno, CA 16.2
Visalia-Porterville, CA 16.2
Modesto, CA 16.1
Stockton, CA 15.9
Hanford-Corcoran, CA 15.3
Ocean City, NJ 15.1

Some areas are having no trouble:
Bismarck, ND 3.2
Lincoln, NE 3.6
Fargo, ND 3.7
Burlington-South Burlington, VT 3.8
Midland, TX 3.9
Logan, UT 3.9

All data is December 2011 Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area

So obiviously, if you're living in California's Central Valley the National Rate of 8.3% will seem a joke. But if you're living in North Dakota or Nebraska, it'll seem way too high.

There's just too much variance in areas to say that what you see makes the National numbers a lie.

 

[edthecynic]

It's not only in their neck of the woods, mine too. Just on the road I live on their's at least 18 homes out of 50 that has someone living there out of work. One man had to sale his home and move back to Wisconsin.

Gee, where I live everybody is working and many are buying or building vacation homes.

I wasn't joking ass hat. OH by the way are you going to acknowledge that you lied in this thread? Then tried to make it look as if I edited your reply?

Home sales jump more than 4 percent in January - BostonHerald.com

WASHINGTON — Sales of previously occupied homes rose in January to the highest pace in nearly two years, a hopeful sign ahead of the spring-buying season.
The National Association of Realtors said today that home sales increased 4.3 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.57 million. That’s the highest level since May 2010.
Home sales have risen nearly 13 percent over the past six months.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So both of your local area casual observations give a more accurate picture of a nationwide survey designed to cover every inch of the country? Really, that's your belief?

It's not only in their neck of the woods, mine too. Just on the road I live on their's at least 18 homes out of 50 that has someone living there out of work. One man had to sale his home and move back to Wisconsin.

Some areas are at Depression level Unemployment....
El Centro, CA 26.8
Yuma, AZ 23.1
Merced, CA 18.7
Yuba City , CA 18.1
Fresno, CA 16.2
Visalia-Porterville, CA 16.2
Modesto, CA 16.1
Stockton, CA 15.9
Hanford-Corcoran, CA 15.3
Ocean City, NJ 15.1

Some areas are having no trouble:
Bismarck, ND 3.2
Lincoln, NE 3.6
Fargo, ND 3.7
Burlington-South Burlington, VT 3.8
Midland, TX 3.9
Logan, UT 3.9

All data is December 2011 Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area

So obiviously, if you're living in California's Central Valley the National Rate of 8.3% will seem a joke. But if you're living in North Dakota or Nebraska, it'll seem way too high.

There's just too much variance in areas to say that what you see makes the National numbers a lie.

You posted 6 cities not having employment problems vs. 10 that have employment problems.
And the 6 are no where near the population numbers of the 10

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Gee, where I live everybody is working and many are buying or building vacation homes.

I wasn't joking ass hat. OH by the way are you going to acknowledge that you lied in this thread? Then tried to make it look as if I edited your reply?

Home sales jump more than 4 percent in January - BostonHerald.com

WASHINGTON — Sales of previously occupied homes rose in January to the highest pace in nearly two years, a hopeful sign ahead of the spring-buying season.
The National Association of Realtors said today that home sales increased 4.3 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.57 million. That’s the highest level since May 2010.
Home sales have risen nearly 13 percent over the past six months.

Just 302,000 new homes were sold in 2011, 6.2% below 2010 and the lowest number of annual sales since the government started tracking home sales in 1963.
New-home sales dropped in December - Jan. 26, 2012

 

[amrchaos]

It's not only in their neck of the woods, mine too. Just on the road I live on their's at least 18 homes out of 50 that has someone living there out of work. One man had to sale his home and move back to Wisconsin.

Some areas are at Depression level Unemployment....
El Centro, CA 26.8
Yuma, AZ 23.1
Merced, CA 18.7
Yuba City , CA 18.1
Fresno, CA 16.2
Visalia-Porterville, CA 16.2
Modesto, CA 16.1
Stockton, CA 15.9
Hanford-Corcoran, CA 15.3
Ocean City, NJ 15.1

Some areas are having no trouble:
Bismarck, ND 3.2
Lincoln, NE 3.6
Fargo, ND 3.7
Burlington-South Burlington, VT 3.8
Midland, TX 3.9
Logan, UT 3.9

All data is December 2011 Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area

So obiviously, if you're living in California's Central Valley the National Rate of 8.3% will seem a joke. But if you're living in North Dakota or Nebraska, it'll seem way too high.

There's just too much variance in areas to say that what you see makes the National numbers a lie.

You posted 6 cities not having employment problems vs. 10 that have employment problems.
And the 6 are no where near the population numbers of the 10

But your observation does not take away from his point.

What you see locally is not evidence for the entire country.. There is low unemployment in some parts of the nation, high unemployment exist in other parts of the nation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Some areas are at Depression level Unemployment....
El Centro, CA 26.8
Yuma, AZ 23.1
Merced, CA 18.7
Yuba City , CA 18.1
Fresno, CA 16.2
Visalia-Porterville, CA 16.2
Modesto, CA 16.1
Stockton, CA 15.9
Hanford-Corcoran, CA 15.3
Ocean City, NJ 15.1

Some areas are having no trouble:
Bismarck, ND 3.2
Lincoln, NE 3.6
Fargo, ND 3.7
Burlington-South Burlington, VT 3.8
Midland, TX 3.9
Logan, UT 3.9

All data is December 2011 Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area

So obiviously, if you're living in California's Central Valley the National Rate of 8.3% will seem a joke. But if you're living in North Dakota or Nebraska, it'll seem way too high.

There's just too much variance in areas to say that what you see makes the National numbers a lie.

You posted 6 cities not having employment problems vs. 10 that have employment problems.
And the 6 are no where near the population numbers of the 10

But your observation does not take away from his point.

What you see locally is not evidence for the entire country.. There is low unemployment in some parts of the nation, high unemployment exist in other parts of the nation.

And what you have yet to observer is that two before me said something similar to what I said. Sure the there is low unemployment in some parts of the nation that has low population.

 

[pinqy]

It's not only in their neck of the woods, mine too. Just on the road I live on their's at least 18 homes out of 50 that has someone living there out of work. One man had to sale his home and move back to Wisconsin.

Some areas are at Depression level Unemployment....
El Centro, CA 26.8
Yuma, AZ 23.1
Merced, CA 18.7
Yuba City , CA 18.1
Fresno, CA 16.2
Visalia-Porterville, CA 16.2
Modesto, CA 16.1
Stockton, CA 15.9
Hanford-Corcoran, CA 15.3
Ocean City, NJ 15.1

Some areas are having no trouble:
Bismarck, ND 3.2
Lincoln, NE 3.6
Fargo, ND 3.7
Burlington-South Burlington, VT 3.8
Midland, TX 3.9
Logan, UT 3.9

All data is December 2011 Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area

So obiviously, if you're living in California's Central Valley the National Rate of 8.3% will seem a joke. But if you're living in North Dakota or Nebraska, it'll seem way too high.

There's just too much variance in areas to say that what you see makes the National numbers a lie.

You posted 6 cities not having employment problems vs. 10 that have employment problems.
And the 6 are no where near the population numbers of the 10

I posted all areas above 15% and all areas below 4%. I also linked to the full list. You want me to add on the 4% areas? 5%?

And the population is irrelevant (though Lincoln, Fargo, and Burlington are larger than most of the 10 high UE places). The point is that what you see in your local area is not necessarily reflective of the National numbers. In fact most cities are not near the National rate of 8.3%...many are higher and many are lower.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Some areas are at Depression level Unemployment....
El Centro, CA 26.8
Yuma, AZ 23.1
Merced, CA 18.7
Yuba City , CA 18.1
Fresno, CA 16.2
Visalia-Porterville, CA 16.2
Modesto, CA 16.1
Stockton, CA 15.9
Hanford-Corcoran, CA 15.3
Ocean City, NJ 15.1

Some areas are having no trouble:
Bismarck, ND 3.2
Lincoln, NE 3.6
Fargo, ND 3.7
Burlington-South Burlington, VT 3.8
Midland, TX 3.9
Logan, UT 3.9

All data is December 2011 Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area

So obiviously, if you're living in California's Central Valley the National Rate of 8.3% will seem a joke. But if you're living in North Dakota or Nebraska, it'll seem way too high.

There's just too much variance in areas to say that what you see makes the National numbers a lie.

You posted 6 cities not having employment problems vs. 10 that have employment problems.
And the 6 are no where near the population numbers of the 10

I posted all areas above 15% and all areas below 4%. I also linked to the full list. You want me to add on the 4% areas? 5%?

And the population is irrelevant (though Lincoln, Fargo, and Burlington are larger than most of the 10 high UE places). The point is that what you see in your local area is not necessarily reflective of the National numbers. In fact most cities are not near the National rate of 8.3%...many are higher and many are lower.

No but add areas that have high population

What you will see is high unemployment high population low unemployment low population.

 

[pinqy]

You posted 6 cities not having employment problems vs. 10 that have employment problems.
And the 6 are no where near the population numbers of the 10

But your observation does not take away from his point.

What you see locally is not evidence for the entire country.. There is low unemployment in some parts of the nation, high unemployment exist in other parts of the nation.

And what you have yet to observer is that two before me said something similar to what I said. Sure the there is low unemployment in some parts of the nation that has low population.

Ok, let's look at that. Average UE rate for metro areas greater than 1 million in the Labor Force (28 areas): 8.4% ranging from 5.5% to 12.2%

Average UE rate for metro areas with LF below 51,000 (28 areas): 7.9% ranging from 4.3% to 13.9%

So, no, size doesn't seem a particularly relevant factor.

And note that of the places previously listed with below 4% UE rate, the smallest was Bismark, with a Labor Force of 61,000