Unemployment hits a 26 year high, now at 10.2%

[Maple]

How's that hope and change workin out for ya??

I know that Obama did not cause this, but he sure isn't doing much to fix it. More money from the no stimulus stimulus bill went to the Arts and Humanities than it did to small business which employs over 70% of Americans. He is an extreme left liberal along with Pelosi and Reid and they are no freinds of business.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/unemployment-rate-hits-102-in-october-2009-11-06-83100

By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The U.S. unemployment rate climbed to 10.2% in October, topping the 10% mark for the first time in 26 years, the Labor Department reported Friday.

Nonfarm payrolls dropped by a seasonally adjusted 190,000 in October, bringing to total number of jobs lost in the recession to 7.3 million. It was the 22nd straight decline in payrolls. Large losses were seen in manufacturing, construction and retail. Health care and temporary-help agencies added jobs. Read the full government report.

The report was worse than expected. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch were forecasting a rise in the unemployment rate to 10%, with 150,000 lost payroll jobs. See Economic Calendar.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 10.2% was the highest since April 1983.

Unemployment rose by 558,000 to 15.7 million, the government said. Of those, 5.6

 

[Maple]

I think it would be wise to put more focus on this economic crisis than to spend all of their time pushing a white elephant down the throats of Americans on the so-called health care reform. Which in reality is just ANOTHER take over of 6% of our economy.

It does not mean much to the person to have health care, but not to have a job, not to have a roof over your head, not to have food on the table, not to be able to support your family and children. Health care reform is a low, low priority as evidenced by the exit polls in Virginia and New Jersey. They want JOBS.

Somehow this White House doesn't get it yet.

 

[Maple]

Any more of you regretting your vote now?????????????

 

[Neubarth]

Actually more like 22 to 23 percent.

 

[Maple]

And the White house spin is----- the stimulus is working, 650,000 jobs SAVED or created, the economy is improving, but we still have a ways to go. Anyone still believing that????????????

Where's the improvement???????????? Where's the jobs??????????

 

[Maple]

Actually more like 22 to 23 percent.

Yes, when you consider the ones who are no longer counted because they have been booted off the unemployment role.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Twenty six years ago, when last the unemplyment rate was over 10%, the diety of the right, sir ronald, had been in office for two years. Of course, then it was Carter's fault. Today, Obama has been in office for nine months, and the right blames Obama - not Boooooooooosh.
Maple, total partisanship proves nothing, though manytimes it suggests hypocrisy.

 

[WillowTree]

I have no regrets. I can proudly report I did not vote for hymn!

 

[Douger]

What country are they referring to ?
In the US of fallen Mpyre real numbers are probably in the high teens/low 20's
Of course with a little more "change" we can get that number to 30%
Yes we can .Yes we can !

I suggest adding a passport to your bug out bag...............

 

[oldfart]

A little more detail on the BLS report and a commentary:

Well the October BLS numbers are out and it's time for an update. They contain no sign of a turnaround in employment. Non-farm employment dropped 190,000 (estimates were 175,000) and the unemployment rate rose to 10.2% (estimates had been 9.9%). Unemployment reached 15.7 million, more than double the level in Dec 07. Labor force participation rates ramained at 65.1% and the ratio of workers to working age population declined again to 58.5% The official underemployment rate rose steeply from 17.0% to 17.5%.

My favorite benchmark, the diffusion index of employment changes, continued to weaken, the 271 non-farm index falling from an adjusted 16.1 in September to 14.9 in October (the 83 industry index fell astonishingly from 4.9 to 3.6). This means that for every sector that added jobs there are six that lost jobs (1 to 15 in manufacturing!).

Job loss is not as bad as it was earlier in the year, but a continuation of losses at that level would have been catasptrophic. There is no truly positive news here, things a only getting worse more slowly. This is a depression on the installment plan.

If I were optimistic, I would predict GDP growth in the fourth quarter, technically ending the "recession" but continued net job losses at least until the middle of next year. My prediction of unemployment topping at 10.5% now appears on the low side and I would put the top at 10.5--11.0%. Employment reaching 2007 levels will not occur until 2013 and adjusting for population growth, we will not see an employment to population ratio in the range we are accustomed to until perhaps 2015 or even later.

Jamie

 

[Maple]

Twenty six years ago, when last the unemplyment rate was over 10%, the diety of the right, sir ronald, had been in office for two years. Of course, then it was Carter's fault. Today, Obama has been in office for nine months, and the right blames Obama - not Boooooooooosh.
Maple, total partisanship proves nothing, though manytimes it suggests hypocrisy.

The difference, Obama is not doing anything about it, he is too busy pushing his massive take over of health care down out throats, one which we can't afford and he is till gonna push a cap and trade bill that will raise the costs of utilities on EVERY american family between $1,500 to $3,000 per year.

Reagan took 8 months to devise a plan, passed across the board tax cuts, which in turn created 20 million new jobs.

Obama=Jimmy Carter, Obama has a " flood the basement," economic philosophy and they are NOT the job creators. In fact, many who recieved a tax cut, DON'T PAY TAXES.

 

[alan1]

Didn't the economic downturn occur after the democrats took control of congress?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Didn't the economic downturn occur after the democrats took control of congress?

Please stop using facts, it only serves to confuse them.

 

[Maple]

Didn't the economic downturn occur after the democrats took control of congress?

We had an understandable downturn after 9-11, Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, we came back, the dems took over congress and here we go again, only it's much much much worse than anything I have ever seen.

You know those across the board tax cuts that Bush did to revive our economy after 9-11, they are not permanent, the dems made sure of that, they expire next year.

So everyone get ready for the tax increase, brought to you by our wonderful fiscally conservative goverment,lol, who needs mo and mo of your money. LOL

 

[Maple]

Didn't the economic downturn occur after the democrats took control of congress?

Please stop using facts, it only serves to confuse them.

I think the facts are confusing Obama, he is on television again stating that job growth always lags. He is citing that 3.5% GDP growth of which 1.5% was the cash for clunkers program and the remainder more government spending. In reality, or the real world. there was no growth. It's a ponsi scheme, I pay you $100 to dig a hole in my backyard and you pay me $100 to dig a hole in your back yard, then we count it as growth in GDP.


The elitist, pedigree libs are calling us stupid out here and insulting the intelligence of all Americans. No one is buying.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The new Unemployment Number is now at a staggering 10.2%. But hey the Recession is Over right? Feeling better? The Recession is "Over" because Ben Bernanke and the President say it is? Sorry but i just can't give Ben Bernanke much credibility anymore. How could so many fall for the fantasy that the very same people who destroyed our Economy in the first place were going to be the same people to fix it? What has changed? I see no change at all. In fact many in this White House are actually calling Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner "Geniuses." Wow,are people really buying that stuff? Scary thought no? In my humble opinion,if this White House is saying the number is 10.2% i'm just going to have to assume the real number is more like 15 to 20%. Just more business as usual in the end and that's definitely not good for America.

 

[xsited1]

Didn't the economic downturn occur after the democrats took control of congress?

Yes. Yes it did.

 

[ihopehefails]

I think the reason why most of the money went to the arts is so Obama can get elected by brainwashing people by having the arts promote obamaness.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yes things really did seem to go South in a hurry when the Democrats took control of Congress. This is hardly ever reported on by the lock-step MSM but it is true.

 

[Toro]

Yes things really did seem to go South in a hurry when the Democrats took control of Congress. This is hardly ever reported on by the lock-step MSM but it is true.

They don't report it because it means jack shit.

False causality
Main article: Correlation does not imply causality

When a statistical test shows a correlation between A and B, there are usually five possibilities:

1. A causes B.
2. B causes A.
3. A and B both partly cause each other.
4. A and B are both caused by a third factor, C.
5. The observed correlation was due purely to chance.

The fifth possibility can be quantified by statistical tests that can calculate the probability that the correlation observed would be as large as it is just by chance if, in fact, there is no relationship between the variables. However, even if that possibility has a small probability, there are still the four others.

If the number of people buying ice cream at the beach is statistically related to the number of people who drown at the beach, then nobody would claim ice cream causes drowning because it's obvious that it isn't so. (In this case, both drowning and ice cream buying are clearly related by a third factor: the number of people at the beach).

This fallacy can be used, for example, to prove that exposure to a chemical causes cancer. Replace "number of people buying ice cream" with "number of people exposed to chemical X", and "number of people who drown" with "number of people who get cancer", and many people will believe you. In such a situation, there may be a statistical correlation even if there is no real effect. For example, if there is a perception that the chemical is "dangerous" (even if it really isn't) property values in the area will decrease, which will entice more low-income families to move to that area. If low-income families are more likely to get cancer than high-income families (this can happen for many reasons, such as a poorer diet or less access to medical care) then rates of cancer will go up, even though the chemical itself is not dangerous. It is believed that this is exactly what happened with some of the early studies showing a link between EMF (electromagnetic fields) from power lines and cancer.

In well-designed studies, the effect of false causality can be eliminated by assigning some people into a "treatment group" and some people into a "control group" at random, and giving the treatment group the treatment and not giving the control group the treatment. In the above example, a researcher might expose one group of people to chemical X and leave a second group unexposed. If the first group had higher cancer rates, the researcher knows that there is no third factor that affected whether a person was exposed because he controlled who was exposed or not, and he assigned people to the exposed and non-exposed groups at random. However, in many applications, actually doing an "experiment" in this way is either prohibitively expensive, infeasible, unethical, illegal, or downright impossible. (For example, it is highly unlikely that an IRB would accept an experiment that involved intentionally exposing people to a dangerous substance in order to test its toxicity.)

Misuse of statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But feel free to post all the laws passed by the Democrat Congress and signed by President Bush in the 10 months after Congress was sworn in to when the worst recession since the Great Depression officially started. I await with baited breath.