Surprise >.. NOT unemployment readjusted now up to 8.3

[boedicca]

You don't really understand how the "real stats" are crunched, do you?

Read:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_d.htm

 

[Papageorgio]

When Bush took office the end of Jan 2001 there were 137,778,000
employed and when he left office the end of Jan 2009 there were 142,187,000 employed for an increase of 5,409,000. However during that same period the unemployed went from 6,023,000 to 12,049,000 an increase of 6,026,000 jobs lost giving a net job loss of 615,000 over his 8 years.

Obama started with 142,187,000 and is at 143,262,000 for a gain of 1,075,000. The unemployed during the same period went from 12,049,000 to 12,029,000 a decrease of 20,000 for a net job increase of 1,095,000.

Do you have a link to the numbers? Not that I distrust you, however numbers can be skewed. When you speak of unemployed, are you speaking of those that are still receiving unemployment or the real unemployment, which is much higher.

We need 135,000 new jobs a month to keep pace with unemployment, that means that means we needed to add 6,480,000 jobs just to keep pace, your numbers show 1,075,000 added, that leaves a short fall of 5,405,000 jobs, yet unemployment is going down?

The numbers are not adding up.

Those numbers are the adjusted numbers which make Bush look better and Obama worse than the unadjusted numbers.


Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age


The rest of your post is bullshit. If you remember, when Bush was trying to privatize SS he told us that once the Boomers start retiring more people will be retiring than new workers entering the workforce, so your info is outdated. No "new" jobs are needed to keep pace with unemployment.

You actually believe we need NO new jobs? Where do you get your info? Many sources and statistics show we need well over 125,000 per month of new jobs.

Bush said a lot of things, but it doesn't mean I believe him or you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm still wondering how a poll taken by Gallup can be more "accurate" than those people who actually get the numbers and crunch the real stats.

SO! Gallop is no longer acceptable with the left?

 

[edthecynic]

Do you have a link to the numbers? Not that I distrust you, however numbers can be skewed. When you speak of unemployed, are you speaking of those that are still receiving unemployment or the real unemployment, which is much higher.

We need 135,000 new jobs a month to keep pace with unemployment, that means that means we needed to add 6,480,000 jobs just to keep pace, your numbers show 1,075,000 added, that leaves a short fall of 5,405,000 jobs, yet unemployment is going down?

The numbers are not adding up.

Those numbers are the adjusted numbers which make Bush look better and Obama worse than the unadjusted numbers.


Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age


The rest of your post is bullshit. If you remember, when Bush was trying to privatize SS he told us that once the Boomers start retiring more people will be retiring than new workers entering the workforce, so your info is outdated. No "new" jobs are needed to keep pace with unemployment.

You actually believe we need NO new jobs? Where do you get your info? Many sources and statistics show we need well over 125,000 per month of new jobs.

Bush said a lot of things, but it doesn't mean I believe him or you.

This November 210,741 Boomers retired, and that doesn't count the Boomers whose bodies broke down and went on disability. While not all of those jobs get filled with new workers, it only takes about half of them being filled to offset your outdated 125,000 jobs needed for new workers entering the workforce. Again this November there were only 140,000+ new jobs created but over 240,000 left the ranks of the unemployed. All your stats and sources are using pre-Boomer numbers in a post Boomer world.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Those numbers are the adjusted numbers which make Bush look better and Obama worse than the unadjusted numbers.


Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age


The rest of your post is bullshit. If you remember, when Bush was trying to privatize SS he told us that once the Boomers start retiring more people will be retiring than new workers entering the workforce, so your info is outdated. No "new" jobs are needed to keep pace with unemployment.

You actually believe we need NO new jobs? Where do you get your info? Many sources and statistics show we need well over 125,000 per month of new jobs.

Bush said a lot of things, but it doesn't mean I believe him or you.

This November 210,741 Boomers retired, and that doesn't count the Boomers whose bodies broke down and went on disability. While not all of those jobs get filled with new workers, it only takes about half of them being filled to offset your outdated 125,000 jobs needed for new workers entering the workforce. Again this November there were only 140,000+ new jobs created but over 240,000 left the ranks of the unemployed. All your stats and sources are using pre-Boomer numbers in a post Boomer world.

link you lying piece of shit.

 

[Papageorgio]

Those numbers are the adjusted numbers which make Bush look better and Obama worse than the unadjusted numbers.


Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age


The rest of your post is bullshit. If you remember, when Bush was trying to privatize SS he told us that once the Boomers start retiring more people will be retiring than new workers entering the workforce, so your info is outdated. No "new" jobs are needed to keep pace with unemployment.

You actually believe we need NO new jobs? Where do you get your info? Many sources and statistics show we need well over 125,000 per month of new jobs.

Bush said a lot of things, but it doesn't mean I believe him or you.

This November 210,741 Boomers retired, and that doesn't count the Boomers whose bodies broke down and went on disability. While not all of those jobs get filled with new workers, it only takes about half of them being filled to offset your outdated 125,000 jobs needed for new workers entering the workforce. Again this November there were only 140,000+ new jobs created but over 240,000 left the ranks of the unemployed. All your stats and sources are using pre-Boomer numbers in a post Boomer world.

My understanding is 240,000 left, 365,000 enter. It is a net.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

More older workers making up labor force
Many seniors are staying on the job or returning to the workforce, leaving less room for younger workers and reducing their purchasing power.
More older workers making up labor force - Los Angeles Times

 

[edthecynic]

You actually believe we need NO new jobs? Where do you get your info? Many sources and statistics show we need well over 125,000 per month of new jobs.

Bush said a lot of things, but it doesn't mean I believe him or you.

This November 210,741 Boomers retired, and that doesn't count the Boomers whose bodies broke down and went on disability. While not all of those jobs get filled with new workers, it only takes about half of them being filled to offset your outdated 125,000 jobs needed for new workers entering the workforce. Again this November there were only 140,000+ new jobs created but over 240,000 left the ranks of the unemployed. All your stats and sources are using pre-Boomer numbers in a post Boomer world.

link you lying piece of shit.

Anyone you call a liar is always telling the truth. Like a typical member of the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood, you are too lazy and too stupid to get the number directly from the SS Administration.

Here's the link, you lazy ****.


Social Security award data

 

[edthecynic]

You actually believe we need NO new jobs? Where do you get your info? Many sources and statistics show we need well over 125,000 per month of new jobs.

Bush said a lot of things, but it doesn't mean I believe him or you.

This November 210,741 Boomers retired, and that doesn't count the Boomers whose bodies broke down and went on disability. While not all of those jobs get filled with new workers, it only takes about half of them being filled to offset your outdated 125,000 jobs needed for new workers entering the workforce. Again this November there were only 140,000+ new jobs created but over 240,000 left the ranks of the unemployed. All your stats and sources are using pre-Boomer numbers in a post Boomer world.

My understanding is 240,000 left, 365,000 enter. It is a net.

Like everything you think you know, your "understanding" is wrong. According to the BLS 191,000 new workers entered the workforce in November, not your made up 365,000.


Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

 

[edthecynic]

More older workers making up labor force
Many seniors are staying on the job or returning to the workforce, leaving less room for younger workers and reducing their purchasing power.
More older workers making up labor force - Los Angeles Times

From your link:

Nearly 1 in 5 Americans ages 65 and older are working or looking for jobs — the highest in almost half a century.

That means that over 80% are leaving the workforce.

 

[Papageorgio]

This November 210,741 Boomers retired, and that doesn't count the Boomers whose bodies broke down and went on disability. While not all of those jobs get filled with new workers, it only takes about half of them being filled to offset your outdated 125,000 jobs needed for new workers entering the workforce. Again this November there were only 140,000+ new jobs created but over 240,000 left the ranks of the unemployed. All your stats and sources are using pre-Boomer numbers in a post Boomer world.

My understanding is 240,000 left, 365,000 enter. It is a net.

Like everything you think you know, your "understanding" is wrong. According to the BLS 191,000 new workers entered the workforce in November, not your made up 365,000.


Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

I was getting my info from another website, so I made up nothing. I also see you are not really wanting to discuss anything. Have a great night.

 

[jillian]

Of course we all know Obama knew this so did the left and most of the media but they had to get the messiah re elected

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, was 7.8% for the month of November, up significantly from 7.0% for October. Gallup's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 8.3%, nearly a one-point increase over October's rate.

U.S. Unadjusted Unemployment Shoots Back Up

as measured by gallup?



you still think romney's going to win, dodn't you?

 

[edthecynic]

My understanding is 240,000 left, 365,000 enter. It is a net.

Like everything you think you know, your "understanding" is wrong. According to the BLS 191,000 new workers entered the workforce in November, not your made up 365,000.


Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

I was getting my info from another website, so I made up nothing. I also see you are not really wanting to discuss anything. Have a great night.

You hypocritically demanded my source, but don't post your source, so you obviously know your source has no credibility and you didn't bother to check a source you know can't be trusted.


Whether you made up the number or your phantom source made up the number, it is still a made up number.

 

[Vanquish]

Anyone who uses Gallup for employment numbers is begging to be ignored. And the theory that the UE numbers were cooked for the election is tin-foil hat bullshit. The experts working at the BoLS are professionals doing a job. Feel free to use your internet unaccountability to insult them...but you're saying more about what a douche YOU are than about how wrong the numbers really are.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm still wondering how a poll taken by Gallup can be more "accurate" than those people who actually get the numbers and crunch the real stats.

SO! Gallop is no longer acceptable with the left?

Actually, they projected Mittens RobMe to win.

Are you gonna trust something that has proven itself wrong?

Figures...................

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm still wondering how a poll taken by Gallup can be more "accurate" than those people who actually get the numbers and crunch the real stats.

SO! Gallop is no longer acceptable with the left?

Actually, they projected Mittens RobMe to win.

Are you gonna trust something that has proven itself wrong?

Figures...................

Well seems the left used Gallop regularly when Gallop showed unemployment lower than obama's labor department unemployment numbers. They didn't use Gallop when it was higher than obama's labor department numbers.

 

[LoneLaugher]

SO! Gallop is no longer acceptable with the left?

Actually, they projected Mittens RobMe to win.

Are you gonna trust something that has proven itself wrong?

Figures...................

Well seems the left used Gallop regularly when Gallop showed unemployment lower than obama's labor department unemployment numbers. They didn't use Gallop when it was higher than obama's labor department numbers.

It seems like that?

Can you point to an example of the left using Gallop's UE numbers? Or, is this just a feeling you have? You nutters,always feeling things.

 

[edthecynic]

SO! Gallop is no longer acceptable with the left?

Actually, they projected Mittens RobMe to win.

Are you gonna trust something that has proven itself wrong?

Figures...................

Well seems the left used Gallop regularly when Gallop showed unemployment lower than obama's labor department unemployment numbers. They didn't use Gallop when it was higher than obama's labor department numbers.

Now of course, the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood has it ass backwards. It was the Right who used Gallup when it was higher claiming Gallup's "unadjusted" numbers were more accurate because they were not seasonally adjusted. Knowing that at times seasonally adjusted numbers are higher than the unadjusted numbers, I predicted that as soon as Gallup's unadjusted numbers were lower than the BLS numbers the Right would reject Gallup and swear by BLS.

This they did in the run up to the election when BLS dropped below 8%. At the time I pointed out that the the previously more accurate Gallup numbers were lower than the BLS rate, and suddenly the Right swore that Gallup was worthless. I again predicted that as soon as Gallup was higher than BLS the Right would again swear by Gallup and trash BLS. CON$ are piss easy to predict.


February 16, 2012
RUSH: Yesterday, Gallup said the real unemployment number 9%; the real underemployment number is 19.1%. So while the regime is claiming that the unemployment rate's gone down to 8.3%, Gallup says it is at 9%. The difference is Gallup uses raw numbers, not seasonally adjusted numbers. I'm starting to believe that "seasonally adjusted" is just code word "for manipulated to help incumbent presidents."

 

[JoeB131]

I'm still wondering how a poll taken by Gallup can be more "accurate" than those people who actually get the numbers and crunch the real stats.

SO! Gallop is no longer acceptable with the left?

Naw, Gallup became inaccurate when they predicted the Weird Mormon Robot would win by 7 when he lost by 4.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually, they projected Mittens RobMe to win.

Are you gonna trust something that has proven itself wrong?

Figures...................

Well seems the left used Gallop regularly when Gallop showed unemployment lower than obama's labor department unemployment numbers. They didn't use Gallop when it was higher than obama's labor department numbers.

Now of course, the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood has it ass backwards. It was the Right who used Gallup when it was higher claiming Gallup's "unadjusted" numbers were more accurate because they were not seasonally adjusted. Knowing that at times seasonally adjusted numbers are higher than the unadjusted numbers, I predicted that as soon as Gallup's unadjusted numbers were lower than the BLS numbers the Right would reject Gallup and swear by BLS.

This they did in the run up to the election when BLS dropped below 8%. At the time I pointed out that the the previously more accurate Gallup numbers were lower than the BLS rate, and suddenly the Right swore that Gallup was worthless. I again predicted that as soon as Gallup was higher than BLS the Right would again swear by Gallup and trash BLS. CON$ are piss easy to predict.


February 16, 2012
RUSH: Yesterday, Gallup said the real unemployment number 9%; the real underemployment number is 19.1%. So while the regime is claiming that the unemployment rate's gone down to 8.3%, Gallup says it is at 9%. The difference is Gallup uses raw numbers, not seasonally adjusted numbers. I'm starting to believe that "seasonally adjusted" is just code word "for manipulated to help incumbent presidents."

And here is one of the biggest users of Gallop when the BLS was higher than Gallop. Shut the **** up troll.