Unemployment Down to 7.8%

[expatriate]

Hint........bigrebs a birther

How'd ya like that ass-kicking Obama gave Romney, assfucker. Still celebrating?

actually... I was a bit disappointed with Obama in the debates, but the BLS numbers will help erase any downside he might have suffered from that... then, the fact checking of Romney's debate whoppers will start to kick in...

and don't forget about that great National Geographic special about the OBL raid that they will show two nights before the election. That can't hurt the president.

Intrade still has Obama as a 2:1 favorite to win.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

And why is unemployment dropping? Is it more jobs or less total people in the workforce? Or a combination of both? If it is a combo which one is having a larger impact?

I know the answer is it is both and the less people in the workforce has the larger impact but I just want to get people thinking about unemployment the same way my business professors at Amherst taught us.

 

[candycorn]

we did not add jobs every month this year.

When 115K are hired....but 130K needed to break even....we have a loss of 15K....

if you want to debate the topic, you need to be honest.

However...I agree....this has nothing to do with seasonal hiring. Seasonal hiring takes place in mid october.

To break even with what?

if you do not hire 130K people in a month, you have a net loss of jobs....for you need to take into consideration people that were fired, layed off and population growth.

Population growth? Okay...thats interesting. It's too bad that the Governor wants to get rid of family planning funding; guess our real unemployment will increase as a result of this if we're comparing newborns and immigrants to those who are here.

As for fired and layed off; wouldn't those numbers be reflected in unemployement claims?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Yeah, hard to say. Thing is, very few pay attention to revisions...

.

Unemployment Rate Falls to 7.8% in September: BLS Unemployment Rate and Jobs Report for September On Friday After First Presidential Debate


But it will be released just prior to the election and if it's up...not good for Obama.

Sure does look like a last ditch effort of damage control for a failed president.

This figure does not include unemployed members of the workforce who are not actively looking for work; nor does it factor in workers with part-time jobs who are seeking full-time employment. When these workers are included, the (U-6) un/underemployment rate for September remained at 14.7% as it had been in August.

The report came less than 48 hours after President Obama turned in a lackluster performance against Republican rival Mitt Romney, who has criticized Obama for presiding over a sluggish recovery with unemployment above 8%.
Unemployment Rate Drops to 7.8 Percent in September: BLS Unemployment Rate and Jobs Report for September On Friday After First Presidential Debate

Damage control? Are you really this stupid? The job creation numbers, put out by ADP, show that new jobs are being created, at a rate that will reduce unemployment. Why aren't you happy about it?

 

[Warrior102]

Not an impressive figure.
But go ahead Libberhoids - run on it.
Maybe Obama will bring this up during the next asswhooping, er.... debate.

 

[Warrior102]

and don't forget about that great National Geographic special about the OBL raid that they will show two nights before the election. That can't hurt the president.

Intrade still has Obama as a 2:1 favorite to win.

All eyes, I am sure, will be glued to National Geographic two nights before the election. The most chilling scene - Obama answers his cell phone on hole #5 at the Andrews Air Farce Base Golf Club to learn that the United States Navy has killed OBL while he ***** off and golfs.

 

[Dick Tuck]

And why is unemployment dropping? Is it more jobs or less total people in the workforce? Or a combination of both? If it is a combo which one is having a larger impact?

I know the answer is it is both and the less people in the workforce has the larger impact but I just want to get people thinking about unemployment the same way my business professors at Amherst taught us.

It's clearly a combo. I think the interesting fact is how many private sector jobs were created under the current administration. I think Robert Reich and your other Ameherst professers would consider significant.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Participation Rate is still way to low. Real unemployment still above 11%. Only 114,000 jobs added in Sept which means the rate will likely be revised back above 8% next month.

Shit, ABC was saying 8.2% this morning, and had charts to support it. How the **** does the Obama administration cook up 7.8%?

With only 114K non-farm?

This is blatant fraud.

 

[Toro]

The household survey said that ~840,000 jobs were created last month, the most since 1983. This definitely helps Obama.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I wonder how many people dropped out of the labor market?

I'm guessing Romney will, in about a month.

Hmmm, 114K new jobs - 160K new job seekers = lower UE.....

Yeah, no fraud there, unhuh......

 

[Meister]

Unemployment Rate Falls to 7.8% in September: BLS Unemployment Rate and Jobs Report for September On Friday After First Presidential Debate


But it will be released just prior to the election and if it's up...not good for Obama.

Sure does look like a last ditch effort of damage control for a failed president.

This figure does not include unemployed members of the workforce who are not actively looking for work; nor does it factor in workers with part-time jobs who are seeking full-time employment. When these workers are included, the (U-6) un/underemployment rate for September remained at 14.7% as it had been in August.

The report came less than 48 hours after President Obama turned in a lackluster performance against Republican rival Mitt Romney, who has criticized Obama for presiding over a sluggish recovery with unemployment above 8%.
Unemployment Rate Drops to 7.8 Percent in September: BLS Unemployment Rate and Jobs Report for September On Friday After First Presidential Debate

Damage control? Are you really this stupid? The job creation numbers, put out by ADP, show that new jobs are being created, at a rate that will reduce unemployment. Why aren't you happy about it?

114,000 new jobs is not going to do the job, Dick. What kind of fuzzy math are you using?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The analyst I was watching, some guy named Payne or Paine was skeptical and said it won't stand come the revisions.

Black guy?

That's Charles Payne, brilliant economist from Harvey Mudd. They have him on KFI out here in Los Angeles, and he writes for the WSJ.

 

[expatriate]

and don't forget about that great National Geographic special about the OBL raid that they will show two nights before the election. That can't hurt the president.

Intrade still has Obama as a 2:1 favorite to win.

All eyes, I am sure, will be glued to National Geographic two nights before the election. The most chilling scene - Obama answers his cell phone on hole #5 at the Andrews Air Farce Base Golf Club to learn that the United States Navy has killed OBL while he ***** off and golfs.

from what I have heard, the video is MUCH more complimentary to Obama than that.

 

[Avorysuds]

ha ha

So much for the GOP's 8% UE talking point.

Unleash the conspiracy theories!!!!!!!!!!!

Claiming the UE rate went down all of this time is in fact a conspiracy theory. More peop0le stop working every month than jobs “created.” It’s impossible for the UE rate to be going down if you use even slightly honest math.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Claiming the UE rate went down all of this time is in fact a conspiracy theory. More peop0le stop working every month than jobs “created.” It’s impossible for the UE rate to be going down if you use even slightly honest math.

What?

You mean 114,000 - 160,000 <> 150,000?

 

[Jarhead]

To break even with what?

if you do not hire 130K people in a month, you have a net loss of jobs....for you need to take into consideration people that were fired, layed off and population growth.

Population growth? Okay...thats interesting. It's too bad that the Governor wants to get rid of family planning funding; guess our real unemployment will increase as a result of this if we're comparing newborns and immigrants to those who are here.

As for fired and layed off; wouldn't those numbers be reflected in unemployement claims?

Not if those same people are the ones who got the new jobs.

And nice try with the family planning funding. Those people willnot be considered in the labor marketplace for 18 years and by then the "experiment" of a liberal type of government will have been proven a failure and we will no longer have liberal congresses trying to help the poor buy luxuries they cant afford.....casuing economic crises.

 

[Steelplate]

I agree with much of your post.

However, the part I boplded took away much of its credibility.

I do not blame the ones who bribe. I blame the ones who take the bribe.

The private sector can do anything they want to try to get congress to make decisions in their favor.

Once congress makes those decisions, I blame congress.

When my son asked for the keys to the car when he was 12.....was he wrong for asking or would I have been the wrong one if I gave them to him?

Of course you don't. These people aren't 12 and this isn't the keys to the car. Stupid analogy.

We have a rigged political system in which it takes a hell of a lot of money to compete, let alone WIN a National election. It's not a matter of corruption, it's a matter of simply running for office....Then, after you're in....the lobbyists come a calling....Remember your boy Boehner passing out checks on the House floor from the tobacco lobby? I'm sure there's plenty of other examples from both sides that we never hear about.

The bottom line is that once you're in their pockets....and you simply HAVE to be just to get elected....they have you.

You lost much credibility with me for excusing the actions of the private sector. In order to have what the AM Radio boys call "critical thinking skills" Those skills need to be applied across the board. Not just at the people you don't agree with.

So if everyone is in everyone's pockets what do you suggest as a solution and how does one fairly evaluate who to vote for if they are all crooked?

Publicly funded elections, each party getting an equal share of the Kitty. Overturn Citizen's United and abolish CPACS. Once that public money is gone, they're done. So they'll need to spend it wisely. There could be exceptions in primary races...but it would have to be highly regulated and strictly enforced.

If you want exact details, I'm afraid that one person can't think of every scenario and have all the answers. It would require a Committee of people determining how best to implement it. But, if you want to get rid of corporate, union, and other special interests in our electoral system....it would be worth the effort and would probably save 100X the cost of implementing it in useless legislation.

 

[candycorn]

if you do not hire 130K people in a month, you have a net loss of jobs....for you need to take into consideration people that were fired, layed off and population growth.

Population growth? Okay...thats interesting. It's too bad that the Governor wants to get rid of family planning funding; guess our real unemployment will increase as a result of this if we're comparing newborns and immigrants to those who are here.

As for fired and layed off; wouldn't those numbers be reflected in unemployement claims?

Not if those same people are the ones who got the new jobs.

So we really don't know how many people were fired/layed off, got new jobs, etc? Fascinating.

And nice try with the family planning funding. Those people willnot be considered in the labor marketplace for 18 years and by then the "experiment" of a liberal type of government will have been proven a failure and we will no longer have liberal congresses trying to help the poor buy luxuries they cant afford.....casuing economic crises.[/QUOTE


So the population growth is strictly employable immigration and doesn't include birth rates ? I'm really curious about this--I assumed it meant population growth--otherwise just call it immigration, right? Or Are you saying that in one month only 130,000 people turn 18? I would think it would be much higher than than

As for family planning; it's my line--the drugs. One of the drugs that can be bought for contraception costs pennies. The result is that the pregnancy that is prevented is not taking up room in the classroom, not on the public assitance, and ultimately not occupying a cell in a prison--all funded by the taxpayers. To extrapalate the equation further (sp? on all of those), if you're hoping for a decrease in abortions, eliminating the funding for contraception is a stupid (also known as a Republican) way to go about it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Publicly funded elections, each party getting an equal share of the Kitty. Overturn Citizen's United and abolish CPACS. Once that public money is gone, they're done. So they'll need to spend it wisely. There could be exceptions in primary races...but it would have to be highly regulated and strictly enforced.

If you want exact details, I'm afraid that one person can't think of every scenario and have all the answers. It would require a Committee of people determining how best to implement it. But, if you want to get rid of corporate, union, and other special interests in our electoral system....it would be worth the effort and would probably save 100X the cost of implementing it in useless legislation.

Wouldn't it be easier and less expensive just to have the news media and unions appoint our rulers?

It would be the same result.

 

[candycorn]

ha ha

So much for the GOP's 8% UE talking point.

Unleash the conspiracy theories!!!!!!!!!!!

Claiming the UE rate went down all of this time is in fact a conspiracy theory. More peop0le stop working every month than jobs “created.” It’s impossible for the UE rate to be going down if you use even slightly honest math.

How do you know that?