Don't you love how they say REMAINS at 7.8% unemployment!!!

[GHook93]

They are saying this because they made a "mistake" lowering it to 7.7% in November, when it should have been 7.8%. Therefore since 7.8% was the correct number it's now conveniently called remaining the same at 7.8%!

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the Obama administration PURPOSELY fudged the number. If the 7.8% stayed at 7.8% in November and not dropped, then it would have hurt the Big O. When it dropped it helped. Very convenient mistake not carrying over the 1!

 

[TNHarley]

Racist

 

[rightwinger]

They are saying this because they made a "mistake" lowering it to 7.7% in November, when it should have been 7.8%. Therefore since 7.8% was the correct number it's now conveniently called remaining the same at 7.8%!

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the Obama administration PURPOSELY fudged the number. If the 7.8% stayed at 7.8% in November and not dropped, then it would have hurt the Big O. When it dropped it helped. Very convenient mistake not carrying over the 1!

You have touched on a major conspiracy

Don't let them get away with that 0.1%. It cost Romney the election

 

[pinqy]

They are saying this because they made a "mistake" lowering it to 7.7% in November, when it should have been 7.8%.

No, they're not saying it was a mistake. They're saying that they redid the seasonal adjustment, using more complete data, and that caused an adjustment of +.1 percentage points for the November data. They also adjusted the rate for April 2009 (+.1), January 2010 (+.1), March 2010 (+.1), August 2010 (-.1), December 2010 (-.1), July 2011 (-.1), August 2011 (-.1), November 2011 (-.1), and July 2012 (-.1)

They revise the seasonal adjustment every December for the previous 5 years.

Therefore since 7.8% was the correct number it's now conveniently called remaining the same at 7.8%!

How is that convenient? 7.8% for November is the better number, based on more data.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the Obama administration PURPOSELY fudged the number.

The administration has nothing to do with the data...no one in the Obama administration has any access to the numbers until the night before release (after the report is already approved and printed) and there are currently no political appointees in BLS.

If the 7.8% stayed at 7.8% in November and not dropped, then it would have hurt the Big O. When it dropped it helped. Very convenient mistake not carrying over the 1!

How would it have helped or hurt Obama?

And why would 9 other months over the last 4 years have been revised? Why would lowering the July 2012 rate now have helped? Especially since, in August, when the July report came out, the July number was an increase over June. You're suggesting that in the middle of the election the number was fudged to show an INCREASE in the UE rate instead of staying the same?

 

[boedicca]

The employed to total population ratio dropped from 58.7 to 58.6. A few more years of Obamanomics, and less than half the adult population will be employed.

 

[pinqy]

The employed to total population ratio dropped from 58.7 to 58.6. A few more years of Obamanomics, and less than half the adult population will be employed.

Barely. The change was of 0.03 percentage points (from 58.67 to 58.64).
And you do relize the while reduced from what it had been, it's still higher than anytime before 1977. so a lower emp-pop ratio isn't really dire, especially when you consider that 33.6% of the population doesn't want to work.

 

[boedicca]

The employed to total population ratio dropped from 58.7 to 58.6. A few more years of Obamanomics, and less than half the adult population will be employed.

Barely. The change was of 0.03 percentage points (from 58.67 to 58.64).
And you do relize the while reduced from what it had been, it's still higher than anytime before 1977. so a lower emp-pop ratio isn't really dire, especially when you consider that 33.6% of the population doesn't want to work.

LOLOL!

Now you morons are reduced to extending decimal points to try to spin the numbers.

The sad fact is that this economy is failing. If we didn't have this massive push to expand Government, the economy would have grown at 4% plus and we would have recovered all the lost jobs and more.

I suggest you take a look at the chart at the link and then rethink your perception of the employment figures.

Pct Job Losses In Post-WWII Recessions - Business Insider

 

[tjvh]

"The Middle Class is doing just fine" -Barry Soetoro

 

[TNHarley]

"The Middle Class is doing just fine" -Barry Soetoro

Joe said the middle class has been in shackles. Which one of the liars are lying??

 

[pinqy]

The employed to total population ratio dropped from 58.7 to 58.6. A few more years of Obamanomics, and less than half the adult population will be employed.

Barely. The change was of 0.03 percentage points (from 58.67 to 58.64).
And you do relize the while reduced from what it had been, it's still higher than anytime before 1977. so a lower emp-pop ratio isn't really dire, especially when you consider that 33.6% of the population doesn't want to work.

LOLOL!

Now you morons are reduced to extending decimal points to try to spin the numbers.

How am I spinning? The change is insignificant...certainly not statistically different. You're the one trying to make it sound doom and gloom when there was no effective change at all (margin of error for the change is +/-0.3 percentage points)

The sad fact is that this economy is failing. If we didn't have this massive push to expand Government, the economy would have grown at 4% plus and we would have recovered all the lost jobs and more.

Gee, now you're sounding like Obama and his ridiculous "jobs saved" claims. Facts:
Non-farm payroll jobs hit their height in January 2008 at 138,023,000 jobs.
A year later, when Obama took office, it had dropped to 133,561,000
It reached its low point in February 2010 at 129,244,000 (loss of 8.8 million jobs, 4.3 million lost under Obama).

Now, for December 2012, the number is at 134,201,000 which means we are still down 4 million since Jan 2008, but up 460,000 from when Obama took office and up 4.8 million since the depth of the jobs losses.

No cause for celebration and it's painfully slow, but things are getting better. No net loss of jobs since September 2010 (though many of the monthly changes are not statistically significantly different from zero)

I suggest you take a look at the chart at the link and then rethink your perception of the employment figures.

Why? I've only stated facts, not perception. The only opinion I've uttered is that things not yet good and the recovery is slow. Do you disagree?

 

[boedicca]

How are you spinning? Until the Epic Fail of Obamanomics, employment stats were always rounded to the first decimal place. You are grasping at straws to try to spin this into a better situation than it is.

Obamanomics = Epic Fail

Period.

 

[pinqy]

How are you spinning? Until the Epic Fail of Obamanomics, employment stats were always rounded to the first decimal place. You are grasping at straws to try to spin this into a better situation than it is.

Obamanomics = Epic Fail

Period.

They still are. and a 0.1 percentage point decrease is meaningless when the margin of error for change is +/- 0.3 percentage points...meaning the real change was somewhere between -0.4 and +0.2 percantage points. Not significantly different from zero. I only extended the decimals to make that clearer. Keep it at one decimal place...still not a meaningful change.

To make it even clearer (though you'll still ignore it), The emp-pop ratio in November was between 58.3% and 59% at 95% confidence interval. In December it was also between 58.3% and 59% at 95% confidence. (math available on request)

But you want to spin that into some kind of impending doom.

You're the one trying to spin an insignificant change as heading towards the apocolypse.

 

[SteadyMercury]

The administration has nothing to do with the data...no one in the Obama administration has any access to the numbers until the night before release (after the report is already approved and printed) and there are currently no political appointees in BLS.

Thank you.

This is one of the more brainless things one sees, that the executive branch has done something nefarious with the employment numbers from the BLS. You don't get a massive cooperation of secret conspiracy in a department containing government workers of all political leanings most of whom have served thru both dem and repub presidents. Obama couldn't change the numbers anymore than Bush could.

How do people thinks this works? Obama sends a memo to BLS and all their statisticians and managers meet in a big room and agree to fudge the numbers all in favor say "aye" but hey nobody tell okay?

Period.

Dude just stop. You look like the guy who brought a knife to a gun fight, the more you argue the more that guy makes you look like a gibbering fool.

 

[depotoo]

The employed to total population ratio dropped from 58.7 to 58.6. A few more years of Obamanomics, and less than half the adult population will be employed.

Barely. The change was of 0.03 percentage points (from 58.67 to 58.64).
And you do relize the while reduced from what it had been, it's still higher than anytime before 1977. so a lower emp-pop ratio isn't really dire, especially when you consider that 33.6% of the population doesn't want to work.

someone is lying to you...

July 2008 - Employment-population ratio 62.4
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_08012008.pdf

 

[Rshermr]

The administration has nothing to do with the data...no one in the Obama administration has any access to the numbers until the night before release (after the report is already approved and printed) and there are currently no political appointees in BLS.

Thank you.

This is one of the more brainless things one sees, that the executive branch has done something nefarious with the employment numbers from the BLS. You don't get a massive cooperation of secret conspiracy in a department containing government workers of all political leanings most of whom have served thru both dem and repub presidents. Obama couldn't change the numbers anymore than Bush could.

How do people thinks this works? Obama sends a memo to BLS and all their statisticians and managers meet in a big room and agree to fudge the numbers all in favor say "aye" but hey nobody tell okay?

Period.

Dude just stop. You look like the guy who brought a knife to a gun fight, the more you argue the more that guy makes you look like a gibbering fool.

Well, it is hard to not look like one, when one is one.

 

[pinqy]

The employed to total population ratio dropped from 58.7 to 58.6. A few more years of Obamanomics, and less than half the adult population will be employed.

Barely. The change was of 0.03 percentage points (from 58.67 to 58.64).
And you do relize the while reduced from what it had been, it's still higher than anytime before 1977. so a lower emp-pop ratio isn't really dire, especially when you consider that 33.6% of the population doesn't want to work.

someone is lying to you...

July 2008 - Employment-population ratio 62.4
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_08012008.pdf

What does the emp pop ratio in July 2008 have to do with anything I said? It refutes nothing I wrote. Oh, and the numbers have been revised...July 2008 was revised down to 62.2

 

[boedicca]

Here's why it's relevant:

The Employment-population ration was 62.4M in July 2008. By December 2012, it declined to 58.6%.

3.8% is no longer employed. That's why tax receipts are down and the deficit is will never come back under control. We need economic growth that generates Real Private Sector Jobs - something Obamanomics is unable to produce.

 

[pinqy]

Here's why it's relevant:

The Employment-population ration was 62.4M in July 2008. By December 2012, it declined to 58.6%.

Well, yeah, but it was already in decline at that point, down from 63.4 in Dec 2006. And it still doesn't refute anything I wrote or show any lie.

 

[Politico]

I love how I was criticized for saying when all the numbers were added there had only been 133,000 new jobs. Turns out in todays report they came up with 155,000. I am never sick of being right.

 

[Rshermr]

Here's why it's relevant:

The Employment-population ration was 62.4M in July 2008. By December 2012, it declined to 58.6%.

3.8% is no longer employed. That's why tax receipts are down and the deficit is will never come back under control. We need economic growth that generates Real Private Sector Jobs - something Obamanomics is unable to produce.

Yup. You are correct. We need tax cuts. That works well, eh. Lets see. Didn't that work well for Reagan. Yeah. That's the ticket. Some good old supply side economics, like reagan used. Dropped taxes at the beginning of his term, and the UE went......OOPS. UP. To the highest rate since the great depression. Up to 10.8%. So, we should do what he did then. More tax decreases, right??? Yeah, that's the ticket. That solved the problem, right. Oh, no. He RAISED taxes 11 times. And borrowed enough to nearly triple the national debt. Used a lot of the new revenue for Stimulus. And grew the federal government. Made the fed gov way bigger than when he came to power.

But that worked well. UE rate went down. Paid off some of the deficit. And had a good economy. Soo, that is what you are suggesting, eh, boedicca. Raise taxes and spend stimulatively. Like Reagan did.

But now I AM confused. That is pretty much what Obama is suggesting. Raise taxes and use the revenue for stimulus spending.