Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In all seriousness - a genuine question...
Why do you guys still insist on using this number? (now 8.3%)
Even MSNBC acknowledged last month that the unemployment number is misleading at best, as it does not address the record number of employable people dropping out of the market - as well as removes the context that underemployment is a more serious problem than unemployment.
Please answer this question in a legitimate, specific way.
It's absolutely astonishing how many of you are see easily fooled by bullshit. There is nothing good coming out of these unemployment numbers today. It's all smoke and mirrors. The fact is we have a record low of people participating in the work force now and they are no longer being counted, hence the lower numbers.
Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge
In all seriousness - a genuine question...
Why do you guys still insist on using this number? (now 8.3%)
Even MSNBC acknowledged last month that the unemployment number is misleading at best, as it does not address the record number of employable people dropping out of the market - as well as removes the context that underemployment is a more serious problem than unemployment.
Please answer this question in a legitimate, specific way.
They use the number because it is easier than facing the reality that we have a stagnant economy going nowhere. It makes there candidate look like he is actually doing something to help the situation, even though he is the reason why we have the stagnation.
The whole thing really is silly because the people who are underemployed or stopped looking altogether will still be voting on Election Day and they aren't going to be fooled by these doctored, artificially low unemployment numbers.
I think anyone who uses the number without mentioning both the unreality of it, and in context with the much more serious problem of underemployment is disingenuous at best. Like I say, even MSNBC clarifies the number.
In all seriousness - a genuine question...
Why do you guys still insist on using this number? (now 8.3%)
Even MSNBC acknowledged last month that the unemployment number is misleading at best, as it does not address the record number of employable people dropping out of the market - as well as removes the context that underemployment is a more serious problem than unemployment.
Please answer this question in a legitimate, specific way.
They use the number because it is easier than facing the reality that we have a stagnant economy going nowhere. It makes their candidate look like he is actually doing something to help the situation, even though he is the reason why we have the stagnation.
The whole thing really is silly because the people who are underemployed or stopped looking altogether will still be voting on Election Day and they aren't going to be fooled by these doctored, artificially low unemployment numbers.
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
Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low
Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge
.4% (.3% SA) is a "tumble"?
They use the number because it is easier than facing the reality that we have a stagnant economy going nowhere. It makes there candidate look like he is actually doing something to help the situation, even though he is the reason why we have the stagnation.
The whole thing really is silly because the people who are underemployed or stopped looking altogether will still be voting on Election Day and they aren't going to be fooled by these doctored, artificially low unemployment numbers.
I think anyone who uses the number without mentioning both the unreality of it, and in context with the much more serious problem of underemployment is disingenuous at best. Like I say, even MSNBC clarifies the number.
when unemployment is at 4.3% the administration does not clarify the number either.
It is like comparing apples to apples.....most of us compare the 8.3% number to the 4.3% number...
If they gave the "real" number...say 16.8%, (just tossing a number out there)....people will be comparing 16.3% to 4.3%.....and that would be comparing apples to oranges..
I see nothing wrong with being consistant...
In all seriousness - a genuine question...
Why do you guys still insist on using this number? (now 8.3%)
Even MSNBC acknowledged last month that the unemployment number is misleading at best, as it does not address the record number of employable people dropping out of the market - as well as removes the context that underemployment is a more serious problem than unemployment.
Please answer this question in a legitimate, specific way.
In order to understand the labor market and use any rational historical comparison, you have to use the same measurement now as you used in the past. If we changed the measure we wouldn't have any basis for understanding the extent of the problem.
Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low
Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge
.4% (.3% SA) is a "tumble"?
I think you're certifiable
Still a long way to go but glad to see that it didn't jump up after the holiday season ended.
In all seriousness - a genuine question...
Why do you guys still insist on using this number? (now 8.3%)
Even MSNBC acknowledged last month that the unemployment number is misleading at best, as it does not address the record number of employable people dropping out of the market - as well as removes the context that underemployment is a more serious problem than unemployment.
Please answer this question in a legitimate, specific way.
In order to understand the labor market and use any rational historical comparison, you have to use the same measurement now as you used in the past. If we changed the measure we wouldn't have any basis for understanding the extent of the problem.
In all seriousness - a genuine question...
Why do you guys still insist on using this number? (now 8.3%)
Even MSNBC acknowledged last month that the unemployment number is misleading at best, as it does not address the record number of employable people dropping out of the market - as well as removes the context that underemployment is a more serious problem than unemployment.
Please answer this question in a legitimate, specific way.
In order to understand the labor market and use any rational historical comparison, you have to use the same measurement now as you used in the past. If we changed the measure we wouldn't have any basis for understanding the extent of the problem.
Sorry...I didnt see this post of yours...and I said the same thing a few posts later.
Must be consistant...or most of us wouyldnt be able to understand.
.4% (.3% SA) is a "tumble"?
I think you're certifiable
Does data scare you, Frank?
Do you know that the baseline changed, Frank, as it does every January?
.4% (.3% SA) is a "tumble"?
I think you're certifiable
Does data scare you, Frank?
Do you know that the baseline changed, Frank, as it does every January?
In all seriousness - a genuine question...
Why do you guys still insist on using this number? (now 8.3%)
Even MSNBC acknowledged last month that the unemployment number is misleading at best, as it does not address the record number of employable people dropping out of the market - as well as removes the context that underemployment is a more serious problem than unemployment.
Please answer this question in a legitimate, specific way.
In order to understand the labor market and use any rational historical comparison, you have to use the same measurement now as you used in the past. If we changed the measure we wouldn't have any basis for understanding the extent of the problem.
Sorry - that is incorrect.
In the interest of accurate comparisons, anything that skews the accuracy of data should ALWAYS have that asterisk...and any genuine statistician, economist, mathematician etc. also - ALWAYS includes at least a footnote of extenuating circumstances - and then also supplies the graph with that circumstance appreciated.
In all seriousness - a genuine question...
Why do you guys still insist on using this number? (now 8.3%)
Even MSNBC acknowledged last month that the unemployment number is misleading at best, as it does not address the record number of employable people dropping out of the market - as well as removes the context that underemployment is a more serious problem than unemployment.
Please answer this question in a legitimate, specific way.
They use the number because it is easier than facing the reality that we have a stagnant economy going nowhere. It makes their candidate look like he is actually doing something to help the situation, even though he is the reason why we have the stagnation.
The whole thing really is silly because the people who are underemployed or stopped looking altogether will still be voting on Election Day and they aren't going to be fooled by these doctored, artificially low unemployment numbers.
Still a long way to go but glad to see that it didn't jump up after the holiday season ended.
Not to be downer....but I used to cater to the retail industry for the holiday's...I furnished them with the seasonal help...trained them and processed their payroll...
Most worked through January 15th of each year (or the following Sunday of the 15th). Then we would have about 10% stay on through the end of January to assist with inventory and preparation for Presidents Day.
The February numbers are what we need to see.
In all seriousness - a genuine question...
Why do you guys still insist on using this number? (now 8.3%)
Even MSNBC acknowledged last month that the unemployment number is misleading at best, as it does not address the record number of employable people dropping out of the market - as well as removes the context that underemployment is a more serious problem than unemployment.
Please answer this question in a legitimate, specific way.
In order to understand the labor market and use any rational historical comparison, you have to use the same measurement now as you used in the past. If we changed the measure we wouldn't have any basis for understanding the extent of the problem.
Sorry - that is incorrect.
In the interest of accurate comparisons, anything that skews the accuracy of data should ALWAYS have that asterisk...and any genuine statistician, economist, mathematician etc. also - ALWAYS includes at least a footnote of extenuating circumstances - and then also supplies the graph with that circumstance appreciated.
