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

[pinqy]

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.

what on earth are you talking about? That's 155,000 more jobs in December than in November. How could you add anything up to get that?

 

[Politico]

Have you not seen the wild add math people use? It's like an algebra equation when the numbers are right in front of them.

 

[pinqy]

Have you not seen the wild add math people use? It's like an algebra equation when the numbers are right in front of them.

and now you're making even less sense. You can't do any kind of math without things to add, which you couldn't have.

 

[Sunni Man]

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%!

What a freaken drama queen!!

Do you realize you are all in a tizzy over a 0.1% difference??

 

[Politico]

Have you not seen the wild add math people use? It's like an algebra equation when the numbers are right in front of them.

and now you're making even less sense. You can't do any kind of math without things to add, which you couldn't have.

I rest my case.

 

[waltky]

Means dem politicians didn't do a thing...

... to improve the situation.

 

[pinqy]

Have you not seen the wild add math people use? It's like an algebra equation when the numbers are right in front of them.

and now you're making even less sense. You can't do any kind of math without things to add, which you couldn't have.

I rest my case.

No, your case was you added numbers to get a change of 133,000. But you couldn't have done that because there are no numbers you could have added to get the monthly change.

 

[depotoo]

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.

what on earth are you talking about? That's 155,000 more jobs in December than in November. How could you add anything up to get that?

October 2012 employed 143,328,000
December 2012 employed 143,305,000

oh dear.
Employment Situation Summary

 

[pinqy]

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.

what on earth are you talking about? That's 155,000 more jobs in December than in November. How could you add anything up to get that?

October 2012 employed 143,328,000
December 2012 employed 143,305,000

oh dear.
Employment Situation Summary

He said he got his number BEFORE the release.

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.

Meaning he's claiming he added up some numbers and got a result of 133,000 new jobs BEFORE the Employment Situation was released.

Oh, and you're citing total employment, not jobs. Different concepts. Go to Table B-1 of your link and look at Total Nonfarm payroll jobs.

Total employment (and I like how you chose two month change instead of 1 month) has about twice the margin of error as the jobs number, which is why it is not generally used except in computing the unemployment rate.

 

[depotoo]

what on earth are you talking about? That's 155,000 more jobs in December than in November. How could you add anything up to get that?

October 2012 employed 143,328,000
December 2012 employed 143,305,000

oh dear.
Employment Situation Summary

He said he got his number BEFORE the release.

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.

Meaning he's claiming he added up some numbers and got a result of 133,000 new jobs BEFORE the Employment Situation was released.

Oh, and you're citing total employment, not jobs. Different concepts. Go to Table B-1 of your link and look at Total Nonfarm payroll jobs.

Total employment (and I like how you chose two month change instead of 1 month) has about twice the margin of error as the jobs number, which is why it is not generally used except in computing the unemployment rate.

oh, that's right, I forget we use the tables that show the best numbers, rather than be consistent. That has happened alot over the last few years.
My entire post was regarding the FACTS that household data shows fewer were employed in December than in October. During the holiday season.

 

[pinqy]

October 2012 employed 143,328,000
December 2012 employed 143,305,000

oh dear.
Employment Situation Summary

He said he got his number BEFORE the release.

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.

Meaning he's claiming he added up some numbers and got a result of 133,000 new jobs BEFORE the Employment Situation was released.

Oh, and you're citing total employment, not jobs. Different concepts. Go to Table B-1 of your link and look at Total Nonfarm payroll jobs.

Total employment (and I like how you chose two month change instead of 1 month) has about twice the margin of error as the jobs number, which is why it is not generally used except in computing the unemployment rate.

oh, that's right, I forget we use the tables that show the best numbers, rather than be consistent. That has happened alot over the last few years.
My entire post was regarding the FACTS that household data shows fewer were employed in December than in October. During the holiday season.

But that was not what anyone else was talking about. I mentioned change in nonfarm payroll jobs from Nov to Dec and you reply with Oct to Dec change in total employment. You're the one cherry picking data and not being consistant...changing both data sets and time periods.

 

[Rshermr]

He said he got his number BEFORE the release. Meaning he's claiming he added up some numbers and got a result of 133,000 new jobs BEFORE the Employment Situation was released.

Oh, and you're citing total employment, not jobs. Different concepts. Go to Table B-1 of your link and look at Total Nonfarm payroll jobs.

Total employment (and I like how you chose two month change instead of 1 month) has about twice the margin of error as the jobs number, which is why it is not generally used except in computing the unemployment rate.

oh, that's right, I forget we use the tables that show the best numbers, rather than be consistent. That has happened alot over the last few years.
My entire post was regarding the FACTS that household data shows fewer were employed in December than in October. During the holiday season.

But that was not what anyone else was talking about. I mentioned change in nonfarm payroll jobs from Nov to Dec and you reply with Oct to Dec change in total employment. You're the one cherry picking data and not being consistant...changing both data sets and time periods.

Correct. But if you want to prove a conspiracy, and that things are bad under a particular presidency, then you do as depotoo has done. And claim everyone else is trying to distort the numbers.

 

[depotoo]

oh, that's right, I forget we use the tables that show the best numbers, rather than be consistent. That has happened alot over the last few years.
My entire post was regarding the FACTS that household data shows fewer were employed in December than in October. During the holiday season.

But that was not what anyone else was talking about. I mentioned change in nonfarm payroll jobs from Nov to Dec and you reply with Oct to Dec change in total employment. You're the one cherry picking data and not being consistant...changing both data sets and time periods.

Correct. But if you want to prove a conspiracy, and that things are bad under a particular presidency, then you do as depotoo has done. And claim everyone else is trying to distort the numbers.

No, you want to look at only the numbers that help your cause, rather than look at the whole. That is the real reality here.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Do you get dizzy with all the spinning you are doing?

You also are not far off from the 47% that aren't paying any federal taxes. Look pretty good times for the lazy.

 

[pinqy]

But that was not what anyone else was talking about. I mentioned change in nonfarm payroll jobs from Nov to Dec and you reply with Oct to Dec change in total employment. You're the one cherry picking data and not being consistant...changing both data sets and time periods.

Correct. But if you want to prove a conspiracy, and that things are bad under a particular presidency, then you do as depotoo has done. And claim everyone else is trying to distort the numbers.

No, you want to look at only the numbers that help your cause, rather than look at the whole. That is the real reality here.

No, that's what you're doing. I was responding to a specific claim by politico about the November to December change in non-farm payroll jobs. There was no "cause" and I made no claims about good or bad. Politico just said something that confused me and I asked for clarification. You jumped in picking a different data set and a specific time frame to support your cause. You chose the ONLY month in the last 4 years where Total Employment was higher than it currently is. How on earth is that the "whole" instead of selective use of data?

 

[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.

Do you get dizzy with all the spinning you are doing?

You also are not far off from the 47% that aren't paying any federal taxes. Look pretty good times for the lazy.

Ok, correct my "spin." Explain how a 0.1 percentage point change is statistically significant.

 

[Rshermr]

But that was not what anyone else was talking about. I mentioned change in nonfarm payroll jobs from Nov to Dec and you reply with Oct to Dec change in total employment. You're the one cherry picking data and not being consistant...changing both data sets and time periods.

Correct. But if you want to prove a conspiracy, and that things are bad under a particular presidency, then you do as depotoo has done. And claim everyone else is trying to distort the numbers.

No, you want to look at only the numbers that help your cause, rather than look at the whole. That is the real reality here.

Yeah. Right. You pick a month and call it the whole picture. Right.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Do you get dizzy with all the spinning you are doing?

You also are not far off from the 47% that aren't paying any federal taxes. Look pretty good times for the lazy.

Wow. Now that post wins the prize for the stupidest attempt at proving something that the poster wants to believe in a while. Damn, that was stupid. Congratulations.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

Do you get dizzy with all the spinning you are doing?

You also are not far off from the 47% that aren't paying any federal taxes. Look pretty good times for the lazy.

Wow. Now that post wins the prize for the stupidest attempt at proving something that the poster wants to believe in a while. Damn, that was stupid. Congratulations.

he's right of course, fewer people working than ever before, U6= 25million unemployed, fewer working than when BO took office and oddly benefits are higher than ever!!

 

[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%.

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.

What a hack.