Who are the unemployed?

[pinqy]

The fact is numbers have been manipulated by a a host of groups who have it in their best interest in another Obama term.

I await your evidence.

And please, don't give us that nonsense about the reporting departments being non partisan. Just remember, the Secretaries in charge of those departments all serve at the pleasure of the President.

Except BLS currently has no political appointees. Sec Labot is irrelevant as anyone who knew the laws would know.

The fact is an increase of 114,000 jobs, a figure in dispute, could not in any way cause the U-3 rate to fall 0.03.

You're right,it couldn't. But no one is claiming it did. Non-farm payroll jobs went up 114k, but non-farm payroll jobs aren't used to calculate the unemployment rate.

Such as simply reducing the number of people available for work

BLS showed the Labor Force increased in Sept.

AND reducing the number of available jobs.

That's not even a concept used in the stats.

In fact, the BLS nor the Regime can or will actually define what a "job" is.

Oh, can you give us an example? Then I'll show that the definition hasn't changed since 1967, and that was minor.

You clearly haven' done the slightest bit of research.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yes it does, and racism still exists, blacks are still the last hired and the first fired.

Ahh yes..Blame whitey. Please.
Use another excuse. The race card is no longer an excuse.
The fact is numbers have been manipulated by a a host of groups who have it in their best interest in another Obama term.
And please, don't give us that nonsense about the reporting departments being non partisan. Just remember, the Secretaries in charge of those departments all serve at the pleasure of the President.
The fact is an increase of 114,000 jobs, a figure in dispute, could not in any way cause the U-3 rate to fall 0.03. Not unless the BLS was using some creative accounting. Such as simply reducing the number of people available for work AND reducing the number of available jobs. In fact, the BLS nor the Regime can or will actually define what a "job" is.
The math just does not add up. And the American people are watching.

The fact is it not only can, it did!!! Just because you didn't want unemployment to go down, you would rather the American people suffer so your party can regain power, doesn't mean it didn't go down .3%

It matters not what anyone "wants"....You and I have different interests. You are a liberal. You like having a liberal president in office.
I am a conservative. I despise liberalism, and the proof is in the pudding that liberalism is a negative for the country. Just look at the debt, poor economy, jobless numbers, amount of people accepting public assistance, etc.
All that matters are the facts.
There has been no credible evidence presented to support this sudden and mysterious drop in the U-3 numbers.
Not only that, no one has bothered to explain why it is that when Obama and his people claim "Obama has created over 5 million jobs" that if it were true how is it that the U-3 number is still 8%...
As previously stated, the numbers just do not add up.

 

[edthecynic]

Ahh yes..Blame whitey. Please.
Use another excuse. The race card is no longer an excuse.
The fact is numbers have been manipulated by a a host of groups who have it in their best interest in another Obama term.
And please, don't give us that nonsense about the reporting departments being non partisan. Just remember, the Secretaries in charge of those departments all serve at the pleasure of the President.
The fact is an increase of 114,000 jobs, a figure in dispute, could not in any way cause the U-3 rate to fall 0.03. Not unless the BLS was using some creative accounting. Such as simply reducing the number of people available for work AND reducing the number of available jobs. In fact, the BLS nor the Regime can or will actually define what a "job" is.
The math just does not add up. And the American people are watching.

The fact is it not only can, it did!!! Just because you didn't want unemployment to go down, you would rather the American people suffer so your party can regain power, doesn't mean it didn't go down .3%

It matters not what anyone "wants"....You and I have different interests. You are a liberal. You like having a liberal president in office.
I am a conservative. I despise liberalism, and the proof is in the pudding that liberalism is a negative for the country. Just look at the debt, poor economy, jobless numbers, amount of people accepting public assistance, etc.
All that matters are the facts.
There has been no credible evidence presented to support this sudden and mysterious drop in the U-3 numbers.
Not only that, no one has bothered to explain why it is that when Obama and his people claim "Obama has created over 5 million jobs" that if it were true how is it that the U-3 number is still 8%...
As previously stated, the numbers just do not add up.

Just because you can't add doesn't mean the numbers don't add up. Two different surveys have U-3 below 8%, that settles it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The fact is numbers have been manipulated by a a host of groups who have it in their best interest in another Obama term.

I await your evidence.

And please, don't give us that nonsense about the reporting departments being non partisan. Just remember, the Secretaries in charge of those departments all serve at the pleasure of the President.

Except BLS currently has no political appointees. Sec Labot is irrelevant as anyone who knew the laws would know.


You're right,it couldn't. But no one is claiming it did. Non-farm payroll jobs went up 114k, but non-farm payroll jobs aren't used to calculate the unemployment rate.


BLS showed the Labor Force increased in Sept.

AND reducing the number of available jobs.

That's not even a concept used in the stats.

In fact, the BLS nor the Regime can or will actually define what a "job" is.

Oh, can you give us an example? Then I'll show that the definition hasn't changed since 1967, and that was minor.

You clearly haven' done the slightest bit of research.

Wait a minute..When the jobs report came out that U-3 had dropped to 7.8% the story was written to include the newly created 114,000 jobs, That is the narrative the administration wanted to be presented. That the addition of these jobs was THE reason for the drop in U-3.
The problem for you partisans is you are desperate. Your guy is floundering. You'll do or say anything to save his presidency and a second term.
Nothing is going to convince us otherwise.

Job....A full time permanent position as an employee of a business.
Not a part temp job or a contractor who works when called in to do so. Not sitting at home watching tv.
One cannot be considered "not unemployed" unless they work at least 30 hours per week or are self employed..
Look, all these statistics are meaningless. If the people generally perceive the economy sucks and it's tough to find work, then it's a bad economy. Period.
And right now the people in general believe the economy is in bad shape.
They see jobs disappearing, their homes losing equity, their savings drying up, their investments doing poorly, the high price of gasoline, heating fuel, electricity, food, etc...The people are pissed. And when this occurs, historically the party controlling the White House gets the blame. It is what it is and no amount of spin on your side is going to change that.
Hilda Lucia Solis is the 25th United States Secretary of Labor, serving in the Obama administration. Say what?
HUH...The President doesn't appoint who?
The president’s nominee to run the highly visible Bureau of Labor Statistics is on track to win Senate approval despite her ties to decidedly left-wing political groups, her critics say.

Erica Groshen



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/13/l...o-left-wing-groups-critics-say/#ixzz2A00wk92L.
Looks like I am not the one who isn't doing research.
I think were adjourned here.

 

[Mr. H.]

I am not unemployed.

Hear me roar.

 

[Ravi]

Well, the truth lies somewhere in between. While there are many who have lost their jobs and cannot find employment equal to what they lost, the fact is that at least 90% of the people who want to be working are working. The problem is that American business has learned to be profitable on that 90% and are not really interested in trying to further grow their businesses. That is a very general statement, but it is somewhat the crux of our problem.

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that many American businesses want to grow their profits without hiring more Americans?

of course they do if they can, and you wouldn't?

I like hiring Americans.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes it does, and racism still exists, blacks are still the last hired and the first fired.

Ahh yes..Blame whitey. Please.
Use another excuse. The race card is no longer an excuse.
The fact is numbers have been manipulated by a a host of groups who have it in their best interest in another Obama term.
And please, don't give us that nonsense about the reporting departments being non partisan. Just remember, the Secretaries in charge of those departments all serve at the pleasure of the President.
The fact is an increase of 114,000 jobs, a figure in dispute, could not in any way cause the U-3 rate to fall 0.03. Not unless the BLS was using some creative accounting. Such as simply reducing the number of people available for work AND reducing the number of available jobs. In fact, the BLS nor the Regime can or will actually define what a "job" is.
The math just does not add up. And the American people are watching.

The fact is it not only can, it did!!! Just because you didn't want unemployment to go down, you would rather the American people suffer so your party can regain power, doesn't mean it didn't go down .3%

Again are you saying Black business owners will not hire blacks first?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The fact is numbers have been manipulated by a a host of groups who have it in their best interest in another Obama term.

I await your evidence.

Except BLS currently has no political appointees. Sec Labot is irrelevant as anyone who knew the laws would know.


You're right,it couldn't. But no one is claiming it did. Non-farm payroll jobs went up 114k, but non-farm payroll jobs aren't used to calculate the unemployment rate.


BLS showed the Labor Force increased in Sept.

That's not even a concept used in the stats.

In fact, the BLS nor the Regime can or will actually define what a "job" is.

Oh, can you give us an example? Then I'll show that the definition hasn't changed since 1967, and that was minor.

You clearly haven' done the slightest bit of research.

Wait a minute..When the jobs report came out that U-3 had dropped to 7.8% the story was written to include the newly created 114,000 jobs, That is the narrative the administration wanted to be presented. That the addition of these jobs was THE reason for the drop in U-3.
The problem for you partisans is you are desperate. Your guy is floundering. You'll do or say anything to save his presidency and a second term.
Nothing is going to convince us otherwise.

Job....A full time permanent position as an employee of a business.
Not a part temp job or a contractor who works when called in to do so. Not sitting at home watching tv.
One cannot be considered "not unemployed" unless they work at least 30 hours per week or are self employed..
Look, all these statistics are meaningless. If the people generally perceive the economy sucks and it's tough to find work, then it's a bad economy. Period.
And right now the people in general believe the economy is in bad shape.
They see jobs disappearing, their homes losing equity, their savings drying up, their investments doing poorly, the high price of gasoline, heating fuel, electricity, food, etc...The people are pissed. And when this occurs, historically the party controlling the White House gets the blame. It is what it is and no amount of spin on your side is going to change that.
Hilda Lucia Solis is the 25th United States Secretary of Labor, serving in the Obama administration. Say what?
HUH...The President doesn't appoint who?
The president’s nominee to run the highly visible Bureau of Labor Statistics is on track to win Senate approval despite her ties to decidedly left-wing political groups, her critics say.

Erica Groshen



Read more: Critics: Bureau of Labor Statistics nominee linked to left-wing groups | The Daily Caller.
Looks like I am not the one who isn't doing research.
I think were adjourned here.

Hey spoony have you ever had one of those BLS telephone surveys? In my 51 years on this earth I have never had one.

 

[editec]

Who are the unemployed?

Easily answered

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm


There's the real answer to that questionm right there in the stats.

Read em and weap, citizens

 

[pinqy]

The fact is numbers have been manipulated by a a host of groups who have it in their best interest in another Obama term.

I await your evidence.

Except BLS currently has no political appointees. Sec Labot is irrelevant as anyone who knew the laws would know.


You're right,it couldn't. But no one is claiming it did. Non-farm payroll jobs went up 114k, but non-farm payroll jobs aren't used to calculate the unemployment rate.


BLS showed the Labor Force increased in Sept.

That's not even a concept used in the stats.

In fact, the BLS nor the Regime can or will actually define what a "job" is.

Oh, can you give us an example? Then I'll show that the definition hasn't changed since 1967, and that was minor.

You clearly haven' done the slightest bit of research.

Wait a minute..When the jobs report came out that U-3 had dropped to 7.8% the story was written to include the newly created 114,000 jobs, That is the narrative the administration wanted to be presented.

The administration has nothing to do with it. They get a pre-release copy the night before but that's it. It's always been written the same way.

If you had ever actually read the report you would have read that the Employment Situation contains TWO seperate surveys. The official "jobs" numbers come from a survey of businesses. This is the official number because it's the most accurate. The sample is around 400,000 worksites (each with multiple employees). And since the universe is businesses that file UI taxes, a full (ok, 98%) count can be done and used to benchmark the monthly survey. The full census (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages) takes to long to compile and the lag is too great to allow for a monthly release, so a survey is used to estimate on a monthly basis. Since it is accurate and can be compared to admin records, it's the official Jobs number. And that showed a net change of 114k in Sep.

But the establishment survey excludes Agriculture, the self-employed, unpaid family workers and others...basically anyone not on an official payroll. And it double counts people with more than one job.

So for UNemployment, a household survey of about 60,000 households a month is used. It also asks about employment, but it counts Everyone 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution and counts a person once no matter how many jobs they have. So the Employment numbers from the Household survey are always going to be larger, but also less accurate due to smaller sample size. What it is used for is calculating the Labor Force and the UE rate. And total Employment from the household survey went up 873,000 in Sep and Unemployment went down 456,000 and that's why the rate dropped so much.

That the addition of these jobs was THE reason for the drop in U-3.

BLS never said nor implied anything of the sort. You got that from people who don't understand the two surveys.

The problem for you partisans is you are desperate. Your guy is floundering. You'll do or say anything to save his presidency and a second term.
Nothing is going to convince us otherwise.

Said the pot to the kettle. The thing is I'm not and never have been an Obama supporter. I talk about the numbers, which have nothing to do with him. I was saying the same things when Bush was President.

Job....A full time permanent position as an employee of a business.
Not a part temp job or a contractor who works when called in to do so. Not sitting at home watching tv.
One cannot be considered "not unemployed" unless they work at least 30 hours per week or are self employed..

Yeah, you won't find a single economist who supports that definition. It's useless. And you're contradicting yourself because on the one hand you're excluding self-employed, but then you'd include someone who is self employed but only worked a couple of hours.

Nobody has ever used your definition as a measure. And how would you classify someone voluntarily working 25 hours a week as a part time job? Unemployed? Not in the Labor Force? "Not really employed?"

Hilda Lucia Solis is the 25th United States Secretary of Labor, serving in the Obama administration. Say what?
HUH...The President doesn't appoint who?
The president’s nominee to run the highly visible Bureau of Labor Statistics is on track to win Senate approval despite her ties to decidedly left-wing political groups, her critics say.

Erica Groshen

Under the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act, (CIPSEA), BLS, Census, and the BEA are designated as Statistical Agencies and can share data with each other. Anyone outside those organizations are not authorized access. So the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce, though they have oversight, are forbidden data access and the statistical agencies are kept seperate and mostly independent (obviously the main Department, and OPM, have budget control).

Dr. Groshen has been Nominated. She has not been confirmed (and would only be confirmed after an Obama victory which you and I hope does not happen). The last BLS Commissioner was Dr. Keith Hall, a Bush appointee. Since his retirement in January, when his term ended, Jack Galvin has been Acting Commissioner. He's been at BLS since 1979, is very professional and would not give in to any kind of political pressure.

Looks like I am not the one who isn't doing research.

You weren't aware that there are two seperate survey. You thought non farm payroll numbers were used to calculate the UE rate, you propose a definition of jobs that no economist would ever support and certainly one no one has ever used, you believed the Secretary of Labor had anything other than budget influence on BLS, and you thought a nominated but unconfirmed appointee had any influence.

Yeah, you didn't do your research.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I await your evidence.

Except BLS currently has no political appointees. Sec Labot is irrelevant as anyone who knew the laws would know.


You're right,it couldn't. But no one is claiming it did. Non-farm payroll jobs went up 114k, but non-farm payroll jobs aren't used to calculate the unemployment rate.


BLS showed the Labor Force increased in Sept.

That's not even a concept used in the stats.

Oh, can you give us an example? Then I'll show that the definition hasn't changed since 1967, and that was minor.

You clearly haven' done the slightest bit of research.

Wait a minute..When the jobs report came out that U-3 had dropped to 7.8% the story was written to include the newly created 114,000 jobs, That is the narrative the administration wanted to be presented.

The administration has nothing to do with it. They get a pre-release copy the night before but that's it. It's always been written the same way.

If you had ever actually read the report you would have read that the Employment Situation contains TWO seperate surveys. The official "jobs" numbers come from a survey of businesses. This is the official number because it's the most accurate. The sample is around 400,000 worksites (each with multiple employees). And since the universe is businesses that file UI taxes, a full (ok, 98%) count can be done and used to benchmark the monthly survey. The full census (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages) takes to long to compile and the lag is too great to allow for a monthly release, so a survey is used to estimate on a monthly basis. Since it is accurate and can be compared to admin records, it's the official Jobs number. And that showed a net change of 114k in Sep.

But the establishment survey excludes Agriculture, the self-employed, unpaid family workers and others...basically anyone not on an official payroll. And it double counts people with more than one job.

So for UNemployment, a household survey of about 60,000 households a month is used. It also asks about employment, but it counts Everyone 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution and counts a person once no matter how many jobs they have. So the Employment numbers from the Household survey are always going to be larger, but also less accurate due to smaller sample size. What it is used for is calculating the Labor Force and the UE rate. And total Employment from the household survey went up 873,000 in Sep and Unemployment went down 456,000 and that's why the rate dropped so much.



BLS never said nor implied anything of the sort. You got that from people who don't understand the two surveys.

Said the pot to the kettle. The thing is I'm not and never have been an Obama supporter. I talk about the numbers, which have nothing to do with him. I was saying the same things when Bush was President.


Yeah, you won't find a single economist who supports that definition. It's useless. And you're contradicting yourself because on the one hand you're excluding self-employed, but then you'd include someone who is self employed but only worked a couple of hours.

Nobody has ever used your definition as a measure. And how would you classify someone voluntarily working 25 hours a week as a part time job? Unemployed? Not in the Labor Force? "Not really employed?"

Hilda Lucia Solis is the 25th United States Secretary of Labor, serving in the Obama administration. Say what?
HUH...The President doesn't appoint who?
The president’s nominee to run the highly visible Bureau of Labor Statistics is on track to win Senate approval despite her ties to decidedly left-wing political groups, her critics say.

Erica Groshen

Under the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act, (CIPSEA), BLS, Census, and the BEA are designated as Statistical Agencies and can share data with each other. Anyone outside those organizations are not authorized access. So the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce, though they have oversight, are forbidden data access and the statistical agencies are kept seperate and mostly independent (obviously the main Department, and OPM, have budget control).

Dr. Groshen has been Nominated. She has not been confirmed (and would only be confirmed after an Obama victory which you and I hope does not happen). The last BLS Commissioner was Dr. Keith Hall, a Bush appointee. Since his retirement in January, when his term ended, Jack Galvin has been Acting Commissioner. He's been at BLS since 1979, is very professional and would not give in to any kind of political pressure.

Looks like I am not the one who isn't doing research.

You weren't aware that there are two seperate survey. You thought non farm payroll numbers were used to calculate the UE rate, you propose a definition of jobs that no economist would ever support and certainly one no one has ever used, you believed the Secretary of Labor had anything other than budget influence on BLS, and you thought a nominated but unconfirmed appointee had any influence.

Yeah, you didn't do your research.

Yeah I did...And you cannot stand it.
Oh this is what I wrote and YOU quoted...
"unless they work at least 30 hours per week or are self employed"..
I don't give a shit about some economist's perception of a "job"..
The bottom line is a "job" is a paying occupation on which one can support them self.
I would like to know how it is that each week well over 300,000 NEW people apply for unemployment benefits while the media reports 114,000 so called jobs were added and somehow this is a gain.
You can spew and spin. It won't change a thing. As long as the people believe the economy is in the shitter and the job market sucks, they will want to change the leadership.

 

[Trajan]

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that many American businesses want to grow their profits without hiring more Americans?

of course they do if they can, and you wouldn't?

I like hiring Americans.

and if you couldn't? what would you do? fold your biz?

 

[Ravi]

of course they do if they can, and you wouldn't?

I like hiring Americans.

and if you couldn't? what would you do? fold your biz?

Why wouldn't I be able to? You make no sense.

 

[Trajan]

I like hiring Americans.

and if you couldn't? what would you do? fold your biz?

Why wouldn't I be able to? You make no sense.

So your biz is labor price proof? No difference in labor costs between a competitor and yourself would force you to downsize or hire cheaper labor?

 

[Rozman]

I think the unemployed are the people who don't have jobs.

 

[Ravi]

and if you couldn't? what would you do? fold your biz?

Why wouldn't I be able to? You make no sense.

So your biz is labor price proof? No difference in labor costs between a competitor and yourself would force you to downsize or hire cheaper labor?

My business would make it impossible to offshore, if that's what you are asking. And while I can hire cheaper labor, I prefer to pay people what they are worth and have loyal employees instead of the high rate of turn over and underbidding that competitors in my biz have.

And I misspoke when I said I like to hire Americans, though I do. I also like to hire immigrants that are working on their citizenship. I should have said, I like to help the American economy because I live in America.

 

[Inthemiddle]

of course they do if they can, and you wouldn't?

I like hiring Americans.

and if you couldn't? what would you do? fold your biz?

If you can't run your business successfully using American labor then one of two things are true:

1. You fail at business

2. Criminals have broken your ability to run a legal business successfully

It's as simple as that.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Ahh yes..Blame whitey. Please.
Use another excuse. The race card is no longer an excuse.
The fact is numbers have been manipulated by a a host of groups who have it in their best interest in another Obama term.
And please, don't give us that nonsense about the reporting departments being non partisan. Just remember, the Secretaries in charge of those departments all serve at the pleasure of the President.
The fact is an increase of 114,000 jobs, a figure in dispute, could not in any way cause the U-3 rate to fall 0.03. Not unless the BLS was using some creative accounting. Such as simply reducing the number of people available for work AND reducing the number of available jobs. In fact, the BLS nor the Regime can or will actually define what a "job" is.
The math just does not add up. And the American people are watching.

The fact is it not only can, it did!!! Just because you didn't want unemployment to go down, you would rather the American people suffer so your party can regain power, doesn't mean it didn't go down .3%

It matters not what anyone "wants"....You and I have different interests. You are a liberal. You like having a liberal president in office.
I am a conservative. I despise liberalism, and the proof is in the pudding that liberalism is a negative for the country. Just look at the debt, poor economy, jobless numbers, amount of people accepting public assistance, etc.
All that matters are the facts.
There has been no credible evidence presented to support this sudden and mysterious drop in the U-3 numbers.
Not only that, no one has bothered to explain why it is that when Obama and his people claim "Obama has created over 5 million jobs" that if it were true how is it that the U-3 number is still 8%...
As previously stated, the numbers just do not add up.

With regard to all this talk about the unemployment rate, you have to look at more than just ONE figure to get an overall projection for how the economy is doing (anyone who is seeking a real understanding about the true state of the nation's economy, over a simple "that's what news network last night told me", knows this)

From the Washington Post Sept 7, 2012
The conventions are over, job numbers are bad – let the attacks begin

The August jobs numbers are out, and the numbers are not good. The unemployment rate is slightly down, only because, devastatingly, 368,000 people dropped out of the civilian labor force last month. When four times more people drop out of the workforce than can find a job, it’s obvious that the economy is not recovering. The labor force participation rate, at 63.5 percent, is the lowest it has been in more than thirty years. Thirty years!! The 96,000 jobs that were added were even lower than the 125,000 that was predicted, and it’s our 43rd straight month of unemployment over 8 percent. It’s unprecedented, and politically crippling.



From the Washington Post Sept 7, 2012
Jobs report is more bad news for Obama

In fact, the 368,000 people who dropped out of the workforce in August is the largest attrition since December 2010.

The economy, meanwhile, continues to create jobs at a slower pace than analysts say is required to effect a recovery, with 96,000 jobs created for the month.

That 96,000 figure is lower than the 141,000 jobs that were created in July and is the fourth time in five months that job growth has failed to crack six digits. (Analysts generally say the economy needs to create around 200,000 jobs per month in a recovery.)

Jobs report is more bad news for Obama

As of Aug 3, 2012
The latest data from the Bureau of Labor statistics:

There were 195,000 fewer people employed in the United States in July than in June, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as the national unemployment rate ticked up from 8.2 percent to 8.3 percent.

Meanwhile, 150,000 people simply dropped out of the labor force during the month and did not seek to find a job.

In June, according to BLS, there had been 142,415,000 people employed in the United States. In July, that dropped to 142,220,000–a decline of 195,000.

During July, the number of people who simply left the labor force (150,000) exceeded the number of newly unemployed (45,000) by more than two to one (105,000).

More people drop-out of the workforce than find jobs in July

Why would the White House even admit and try to spin, regarding those individuals who are dropping out of the workforce, as a good thing?

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney explained that the number of people dropping out of the work force, which artificially depresses the unemployment rate, can be regarded as an "economic positive."


Read more: Blog: WH spokesman: People dropping out of workforce is an 'economic positive'