Romney and GOP in Panic After Unemployment drops to 7.8%

[LadyGunSlinger]

Oh it's not a "small" drop.

Big picture is that it is a huge drop. Unemployment was at 10% in October of 2009. That's before the stimulus was implemented and Obama's policies took effect.

His numbers..in this regard..are better then George W. Bush's.

Biggest single improvement in the unemployment rate since 1983.

You and the rest of the Zombie herd are a standing joke.. You're showing yourselves to be completely uneducated in simple math.. You should be embarassed. Show us if you will how creating (if those numbers even hold true) 110k jobs which doesn't keep up with population growth, will bring down an unemployment rate of 8.1% to 7.8%.. Show us??!! Show us the MATH.. Do it.

 

[beretta304]

The GOP and their Job Truther minions will be here to let us all know how the numbers aren't right. They are really pissed off that more people are back to work.

And if the Libs weren't pissed they would vote for Romney and put even MORE people back to work!

 

[Foxfyre]

Sesame Street is brought to you today by the number 7.8, and by the letters W, for "Willard," and B, for "bummer."

It still cracks me up you called yourself an Independent. Though I guess not as much still as that you're Ed The Cynic because you're cynical of people who distrust government.

BTW, when the left were attacking W for employment rates well below 7.8%, you were on W's side, right EdTheLemur?

Did Democrats accuse Reagan of "cooking the books" when unemployment fell from 11% to 7 % during the election year?

Yes. Some did. But they couldn't come up with any way to dispute the numbers then either.

Edit. I believe it wasn't quite so dramatic a drop as your numbers in a single year though. But Reagan policies did put a lot of folks back to work.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1985/02/art1full.pdf

 

[BlindBoo]

Nah, their still swimming in the orgasimic bliss of Mittems lies from the debates

"I love ya baby.....you're the only one......really.....I mean it .... this time.....honest I do!

 

[lukelk]

since this i the 3rd post about this I will copy/paste my post of the other two treads........................


I have to ask some questions, then I will give the answers.

So why is it wrong to wonder whether the BLS stats have been fudged?

I’ll give you three answers, in order of how convincing I find them.

First, if you know and understand the BLS and its structure — its statutory structure and its employment structure — you understand this simply isn’t how things happen. The BLS is independent of the Department of Labor. If you go to the BLS website, you won’t even find a picture of the Secretary of Labor there. It’s completely firewalled.

The one exception to this would be the Commissioner of the BLS. The president appoints a BLS commissioner, but for most of this administration it’s been a Republican. When his term ran out, Congress refused to confirm Obama’s appointee. So the current commissioner is in fact a career guy from within BLS, and if you know the institution at all, the BLS is an institution of nerds, by nerds.

So you could even argue that Republicans have protected the BLS from political influence by refusing to confirm an Obama appointee?

Those would be your words, not mine!

But there is literally not a political appointee in the building. Furthermore, the process involves so many staff, and the culture of independence is one of, if not the most, deep-seated value within the organization. The problem with the conspiracy theory is that there are so many staff who work on the numbers in various stages that such a conspiracy would be pretty much implausible. Were one to even attempt to do that there would be so many whistleblowers that you would have heard about it already.

I know these people, I’ve seen how they work, I know the culture — it’s unthinkable.

Secondly: Who believes the numbers are being manipulated? Certainly you could look at your twitter feed and Fox news and worry about it right now, but sophisticated players clearly don’t. Watch what happened to the stock market — if there was something wrong with the numbers that wingnuts on fringe blogs could figure out, presumably savvy financial market traders would have figured the same thing out as well. But savvy financial market traders are clearly trading as if this morning’s report was good news. Very good news. So these people have to be claiming that not only is there a conspiracy but that they are smarter and more aware of it than Goldman Sachs and various other savvy financial market traders.

And the third argument — which I find the least convincing, but it’s at least worth mentioning — is if you were going to fiddle the numbers, this isn’t how you would do it. There’s a strong counterargument that Obama has actually been somewhat unlucky. The BLS discovered two weeks ago that they had been undercounting jobs growth in the previous year by 32,000 a month. So Obama could have had much much stronger headlines for each month of the previous year. Would the president have wanted such dire headlines? Quite clearly, no. And if you were going to manipulate anything, what you would manipulate would be the headline payroll number, which was 114,000 — bang on expectations.



So what explains all the revisions? Last month’s and July’s payroll numbers both got big upward revisions. Where do these new numbers come from?

The payroll number literally comes from a survey of firms. The BLS asks them how many people on your payroll, and some firms just get around to filling out their surveys late, and send them in late. So what we’ve learned here is that there are a bunch of firms over the last few months which were basically too busy hiring people to fill in their forms on time. This is a fairly standard cyclical response — you also see it when firing becomes a really big issue — sometimes firms are too busy firing people.


I hope you enjoy the read, and I welcome debate with facts in return.

 

[edthecynic]

It still cracks me up you called yourself an Independent. Though I guess not as much still as that you're Ed The Cynic because you're cynical of people who distrust government.

BTW, when the left were attacking W for employment rates well below 7.8%, you were on W's side, right EdTheLemur?

Did Democrats accuse Reagan of "cooking the books" when unemployment fell from 11% to 7 % during the election year?

But the labor force participation rate GREW then with Reagan... that is not the case now.. it is 0.1% higher than the low of 63.6%, which last occurred DEC of 1981, as Reagan was getting things in place to start economic improvements

Were Boomers retiring during St Ronnie's regime?

 

[slackjawed]

The GOP and their Job Truther minions will be here to let us all know how the numbers aren't right. They are really pissed off that more people are back to work.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

I have been trying to keep an open mind on this subject and give the benefit of the doubt to those currently in charge of keeping track of employment numbers, however; the link diamond dave just posted is making that very hard.

I do not want to believe that the dept of labor would cook numbers for political purposes. I just don't.

Starting to look that way though.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

 

[lukelk]

The GOP and their Job Truther minions will be here to let us all know how the numbers aren't right. They are really pissed off that more people are back to work.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

I have been trying to keep an open mind on this subject and give the benefit of the doubt to those currently in charge of keeping track of employment numbers, however; the link diamond dave just posted is making that very hard.

I do not want to believe that the dept of labor would cook numbers for political purposes. I just don't.

Starting to look that way though.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

NOT a factual argument, please make an argument with facts/////////////////NEXT

 

[kaz]

Nah, their still swimming in the orgasimic bliss of Mittems lies from the debates

"I love ya baby.....you're the only one......really.....I mean it .... this time.....honest I do!

Yes, that is the problem isn't it? Obama is in the difficult position of being truthful and honest and pointing out the dead moose on the table no one wants to talk about by pointing out that our predicament will only be fixed by our all buttoning our belts, joining together, and dumping our problems on corporations and the rich...

 

[AceRothstein]

The GOP and their Job Truther minions will be here to let us all know how the numbers aren't right. They are really pissed off that more people are back to work.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

There are 10,000 boomers turning 65 every day, many of them are retiring.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh it's not a "small" drop.

Big picture is that it is a huge drop. Unemployment was at 10% in October of 2009. That's before the stimulus was implemented and Obama's policies took effect.

His numbers..in this regard..are better then George W. Bush's.

Biggest single improvement in the unemployment rate since 1983.

And yet many millions more are out of work than at any time during any of the Bush years. So what is more important. A fudged unemployment rate? Or people actually working? I'm sure you'll have a great answer and take your time figuring out what that will be.

 

[lukelk]

Oh it's not a "small" drop.

Big picture is that it is a huge drop. Unemployment was at 10% in October of 2009. That's before the stimulus was implemented and Obama's policies took effect.

His numbers..in this regard..are better then George W. Bush's.

Biggest single improvement in the unemployment rate since 1983.

And yet many millions more are out of work than at any time during any of the Bush years. So what is more important. A fudged unemployment rate? Or people actually working? I'm sure you'll have a great answer and take your time figuring out what that will be.

Can you people PLEASE make an argument against my post WITH a FACTUAL, REAL ARGUMENT////////////////NEXT

 

[edthecynic]

The GOP and their Job Truther minions will be here to let us all know how the numbers aren't right. They are really pissed off that more people are back to work.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

I have been trying to keep an open mind on this subject and give the benefit of the doubt to those currently in charge of keeping track of employment numbers, however; the link diamond dave just posted is making that very hard.

I do not want to believe that the dept of labor would cook numbers for political purposes. I just don't.

Starting to look that way though.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

So I guess you think Gallup, ADP, and TrimTabs Investment Research are ALL fudging the numbers too.

 

[LilOlLady]

and when they are runing scared, they do stupid things.

 

[lukelk]

here is another copy/paste since they don't want to respond to my post with a FACTUAL, REAL argument.............................

I have to ask some questions, then I will give the answers.

So why is it wrong to wonder whether the BLS stats have been fudged?

I’ll give you three answers, in order of how convincing I find them.

First, if you know and understand the BLS and its structure — its statutory structure and its employment structure — you understand this simply isn’t how things happen. The BLS is independent of the Department of Labor. If you go to the BLS website, you won’t even find a picture of the Secretary of Labor there. It’s completely firewalled.

The one exception to this would be the Commissioner of the BLS. The president appoints a BLS commissioner, but for most of this administration it’s been a Republican. When his term ran out, Congress refused to confirm Obama’s appointee. So the current commissioner is in fact a career guy from within BLS, and if you know the institution at all, the BLS is an institution of nerds, by nerds.

So you could even argue that Republicans have protected the BLS from political influence by refusing to confirm an Obama appointee?

Those would be your words, not mine!

But there is literally not a political appointee in the building. Furthermore, the process involves so many staff, and the culture of independence is one of, if not the most, deep-seated value within the organization. The problem with the conspiracy theory is that there are so many staff who work on the numbers in various stages that such a conspiracy would be pretty much implausible. Were one to even attempt to do that there would be so many whistleblowers that you would have heard about it already.

I know these people, I’ve seen how they work, I know the culture — it’s unthinkable.

Secondly: Who believes the numbers are being manipulated? Certainly you could look at your twitter feed and Fox news and worry about it right now, but sophisticated players clearly don’t. Watch what happened to the stock market — if there was something wrong with the numbers that wingnuts on fringe blogs could figure out, presumably savvy financial market traders would have figured the same thing out as well. But savvy financial market traders are clearly trading as if this morning’s report was good news. Very good news. So these people have to be claiming that not only is there a conspiracy but that they are smarter and more aware of it than Goldman Sachs and various other savvy financial market traders.

And the third argument — which I find the least convincing, but it’s at least worth mentioning — is if you were going to fiddle the numbers, this isn’t how you would do it. There’s a strong counterargument that Obama has actually been somewhat unlucky. The BLS discovered two weeks ago that they had been undercounting jobs growth in the previous year by 32,000 a month. So Obama could have had much much stronger headlines for each month of the previous year. Would the president have wanted such dire headlines? Quite clearly, no. And if you were going to manipulate anything, what you would manipulate would be the headline payroll number, which was 114,000 — bang on expectations.



So what explains all the revisions? Last month’s and July’s payroll numbers both got big upward revisions. Where do these new numbers come from?

The payroll number literally comes from a survey of firms. The BLS asks them how many people on your payroll, and some firms just get around to filling out their surveys late, and send them in late. So what we’ve learned here is that there are a bunch of firms over the last few months which were basically too busy hiring people to fill in their forms on time. This is a fairly standard cyclical response — you also see it when firing becomes a really big issue — sometimes firms are too busy firing people.


I hope you enjoy the read, and I welcome debate with facts in return.

 

[AceRothstein]

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

I have been trying to keep an open mind on this subject and give the benefit of the doubt to those currently in charge of keeping track of employment numbers, however; the link diamond dave just posted is making that very hard.

I do not want to believe that the dept of labor would cook numbers for political purposes. I just don't.

Starting to look that way though.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

So I guess you think Gallup, ADP, and TrimTabs Investment Research are ALL fudging the numbers too.

They'll probably say yes. The poll truthers and jobs truthers seem to be the same set of people.

 

[kaz]

Biggest single improvement in the unemployment rate since 1983.

And yet many millions more are out of work than at any time during any of the Bush years. So what is more important. A fudged unemployment rate? Or people actually working? I'm sure you'll have a great answer and take your time figuring out what that will be.

Can you people PLEASE make an argument against my post WITH a FACTUAL, REAL ARGUMENT////////////////NEXT

You believe anything Obama tells you, you don't believe anything Romney tells you. I think we're aware of that, and I'm not sure why anyone would want to argue with you. I will give you an observation though.

800K people found 114K jobs. Now, read the first paragraph again.

 

[chikenwing]

One has to wonder how the day before 10/4/2012 all the major new outlets reported an almost 400k increase in new unemployment applications, but the next day just after the one gets his butt handed to him we get a drop in unemployment numbers


WTF????

 

[lukelk]

TO KAZ

I ask again. POST a FACTUAL argument, a REAL argument, I dont bate to straw man arguments that are NOT FACTUAL REAL argument. here is the copy and paste again, so you can try one more time.


here is another copy/paste since they don't want to respond to my post with a FACTUAL, REAL argument.............................

I have to ask some questions, then I will give the answers.

So why is it wrong to wonder whether the BLS stats have been fudged?

I’ll give you three answers, in order of how convincing I find them.

First, if you know and understand the BLS and its structure — its statutory structure and its employment structure — you understand this simply isn’t how things happen. The BLS is independent of the Department of Labor. If you go to the BLS website, you won’t even find a picture of the Secretary of Labor there. It’s completely firewalled.

The one exception to this would be the Commissioner of the BLS. The president appoints a BLS commissioner, but for most of this administration it’s been a Republican. When his term ran out, Congress refused to confirm Obama’s appointee. So the current commissioner is in fact a career guy from within BLS, and if you know the institution at all, the BLS is an institution of nerds, by nerds.

So you could even argue that Republicans have protected the BLS from political influence by refusing to confirm an Obama appointee?

Those would be your words, not mine!

But there is literally not a political appointee in the building. Furthermore, the process involves so many staff, and the culture of independence is one of, if not the most, deep-seated value within the organization. The problem with the conspiracy theory is that there are so many staff who work on the numbers in various stages that such a conspiracy would be pretty much implausible. Were one to even attempt to do that there would be so many whistleblowers that you would have heard about it already.

I know these people, I’ve seen how they work, I know the culture — it’s unthinkable.

Secondly: Who believes the numbers are being manipulated? Certainly you could look at your twitter feed and Fox news and worry about it right now, but sophisticated players clearly don’t. Watch what happened to the stock market — if there was something wrong with the numbers that wingnuts on fringe blogs could figure out, presumably savvy financial market traders would have figured the same thing out as well. But savvy financial market traders are clearly trading as if this morning’s report was good news. Very good news. So these people have to be claiming that not only is there a conspiracy but that they are smarter and more aware of it than Goldman Sachs and various other savvy financial market traders.

And the third argument — which I find the least convincing, but it’s at least worth mentioning — is if you were going to fiddle the numbers, this isn’t how you would do it. There’s a strong counterargument that Obama has actually been somewhat unlucky. The BLS discovered two weeks ago that they had been undercounting jobs growth in the previous year by 32,000 a month. So Obama could have had much much stronger headlines for each month of the previous year. Would the president have wanted such dire headlines? Quite clearly, no. And if you were going to manipulate anything, what you would manipulate would be the headline payroll number, which was 114,000 — bang on expectations.



So what explains all the revisions? Last month’s and July’s payroll numbers both got big upward revisions. Where do these new numbers come from?

The payroll number literally comes from a survey of firms. The BLS asks them how many people on your payroll, and some firms just get around to filling out their surveys late, and send them in late. So what we’ve learned here is that there are a bunch of firms over the last few months which were basically too busy hiring people to fill in their forms on time. This is a fairly standard cyclical response — you also see it when firing becomes a really big issue — sometimes firms are too busy firing people.


I hope you enjoy the read, and I welcome debate with facts in return.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh it's not a "small" drop.

Big picture is that it is a huge drop. Unemployment was at 10% in October of 2009. That's before the stimulus was implemented and Obama's policies took effect.

His numbers..in this regard..are better then George W. Bush's.

Biggest single improvement in the unemployment rate since 1983.

And yet many millions more are out of work than at any time during any of the Bush years. So what is more important. A fudged unemployment rate? Or people actually working? I'm sure you'll have a great answer and take your time figuring out what that will be.

Bush doubled the number of unemployed from 6 million to 12 million. There are 12.1 million unemployed today.
How do you get millions from one hundred thousand?