Unemployment drops in 43 states

[daveman]

By the way...any job growth below 125,000 a month is actually job decline.
So in reality, the economy needed 625,000 new jobs in the past 6 months to keep up with new employable people entering the job market. So we have a deficit of 125,000 jobs in the past 5 months.

The math is not debatable.

Leftists think math, like the definitions of words, is subject to manipulation to suit the needs of the moment.

And the need of the moment is to make the Obama Administration look less like an utter failure.

 

[Paulie]

If the bar were set any lower you could slip under a penny and give Lincoln head......

I wish I said this

 

[pinqy]

Yeah, I read how DoL fudged the numbers look better for Obama.

Perhaps you should read something by someone who knows what they're talking about.

Here are the official numbers from the November 2011 BLS unemployment report:
Unemployment rate falls to 8.6%, down 0.4% from 9% last month

Ok, that is correct.

The private sector added 140,000 new jobs in October 2011.
The public sector cut 20,000 jobs in October 2011. (A net of 120,000 new jobs created.)

True, but nothing to do with the Unemployment rate calculations. "New jobs" is a count of JOBS, not people (one person can hold more than one job) and is from the Current Employment Survey which surveys non-farm establishments. It excludes agriculture, the self employed, people who work in other people's houses, and unpaid family workers. Theses numbers are NOT used to calclute the UE rate. The UE rate comes from the Current Population Survey, which surveys households and includes everyone 16 and older not in prison, a mental institute, or the military. That showed an increase of 278,000 empoloyed persons from Oct to Nov.

But 190,000 people LEFT THE LABOR FORCE IN OCTOBER because (a) their unemployment benefits had run out and they no longer can file claims for compensation; and (b) they gave up looking for work since no jobs in their area are available, so-called "discouraged workers."

First, the Labor Force dropped 315,000 in Nov. (Odd that he can't get the numbers right when the real numbers are worse than he claims).
Second, the CPS doesn't even ask about benefits so it's untrue to say anyone left the labor force because they're not filing claims...that's not how it's measured.
Third, not everyone who leaves the labor force is discouraged.

So ask yourself this simple question using the U.S. Government's own numbers.

If 120,000 new workers joined the U.S. labor force in October but 190,000 workers also left the very same labor force in the same month because they could not find jobs, how can the unemployment rate go down?

How? The BLS assumes you can be unemployed, not have a job of any kind, but still not be "officially unemployed" for their calculations.

Again, he's mixing and matching completely different surveys. But as far as definitions:

If you worked during the reference week you are Employed.
If you did not work during the reference week, but actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks, you are Unemployed.
If you neither worked nor tried to work, you are Not in the Labor Force.

According to you, me, and common sense, someone who is "not unemployed" is employed.

No, that's not common sense. Does he really want to conisder retirees, full time students, stay home spouses, etc as Unemployed? Really?

You're unemployed if you're not working and trying to work...that's always been the definition. You can say you want a job all you want, but if you're not doing something about it, then in all practical effects and impact, it's no different than if you don't want a job.

 

[daveman]

Yeah, I read how DoL fudged the numbers look better for Obama.

Perhaps you should read something by someone who knows what they're talking about.

Here are the official numbers from the November 2011 BLS unemployment report:
Unemployment rate falls to 8.6%, down 0.4% from 9% last month

Ok, that is correct.

True, but nothing to do with the Unemployment rate calculations. "New jobs" is a count of JOBS, not people (one person can hold more than one job) and is from the Current Employment Survey which surveys non-farm establishments. It excludes agriculture, the self employed, people who work in other people's houses, and unpaid family workers. Theses numbers are NOT used to calclute the UE rate. The UE rate comes from the Current Population Survey, which surveys households and includes everyone 16 and older not in prison, a mental institute, or the military. That showed an increase of 278,000 empoloyed persons from Oct to Nov.


First, the Labor Force dropped 315,000 in Nov. (Odd that he can't get the numbers right when the real numbers are worse than he claims).
Second, the CPS doesn't even ask about benefits so it's untrue to say anyone left the labor force because they're not filing claims...that's not how it's measured.
Third, not everyone who leaves the labor force is discouraged.

So ask yourself this simple question using the U.S. Government's own numbers.

If 120,000 new workers joined the U.S. labor force in October but 190,000 workers also left the very same labor force in the same month because they could not find jobs, how can the unemployment rate go down?

How? The BLS assumes you can be unemployed, not have a job of any kind, but still not be "officially unemployed" for their calculations.

Again, he's mixing and matching completely different surveys. But as far as definitions:

If you worked during the reference week you are Employed.
If you did not work during the reference week, but actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks, you are Unemployed.
If you neither worked nor tried to work, you are Not in the Labor Force.

According to you, me, and common sense, someone who is "not unemployed" is employed.

No, that's not common sense. Does he really want to conisder retirees, full time students, stay home spouses, etc as Unemployed? Really?

You're unemployed if you're not working and trying to work...that's always been the definition. You can say you want a job all you want, but if you're not doing something about it, then in all practical effects and impact, it's no different than if you don't want a job.

That Obama Kool-Aid sure is yummy, isn't it? Have another glass.

 

[The Infidel]

Don't worry we will get there.

Obama is Reagan in 1984.

Inaccurate. Obama is Carter in 1979.

Sorry, unemployment is going down not up.

You need to study your history.

Get back to me when after you do a little reading.

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.

With a bit of fuzzy math... guess your correct

 

[The Infidel]

By the way...any job growth below 125,000 a month is actually job decline.
So in reality, the economy needed 625,000 new jobs in the past 6 months to keep up with new employable people entering the job market. So we have a deficit of 125,000 jobs in the past 5 months.

The math is not debatable.

Leftists think math, like the definitions of words, is subject to manipulation to suit the needs of the moment.

And the need of the moment is to make the Obama Administration look less like an utter failure.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0]Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Trajan]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Unemployment rates fell in 43 states in November, the most number of states to report such declines in eight years.

The falling state rates reflect the brightening jobs picture nationally. The U.S. unemployment rate fell sharply in November to 8.6 percent, the lowest since March 2009. The economy has generated 100,000 or more jobs five months in a row — the first time that's happened since 2006, before the Great Recession.

The Associated Press: Unemployment fell in 43 states in November

The economy has generated 100,000 or more jobs five months in a row

the economy requires approx. 130K jobs to just meet the employment requirements for new entrants into the work force.

you have been told this, at least 5 times that I know of, why the hell are you so hard headed? really? seriously? why?

Don't worry we will get there.

Obama is Reagan in 1984.

really? so, we are going to get 300k, 450k 1.1 MILLION jobs a month? and consistent 5-7% GDP growth?because obama has missed the boat. that should have happened early last year to even come close to Reagans record in that respect, but hey, you go ahead and

 

[pinqy]

Yeah, I read how DoL fudged the numbers look better for Obama.

Perhaps you should read something by someone who knows what they're talking about.

Ok, that is correct.

True, but nothing to do with the Unemployment rate calculations. "New jobs" is a count of JOBS, not people (one person can hold more than one job) and is from the Current Employment Survey which surveys non-farm establishments. It excludes agriculture, the self employed, people who work in other people's houses, and unpaid family workers. Theses numbers are NOT used to calclute the UE rate. The UE rate comes from the Current Population Survey, which surveys households and includes everyone 16 and older not in prison, a mental institute, or the military. That showed an increase of 278,000 empoloyed persons from Oct to Nov.


First, the Labor Force dropped 315,000 in Nov. (Odd that he can't get the numbers right when the real numbers are worse than he claims).
Second, the CPS doesn't even ask about benefits so it's untrue to say anyone left the labor force because they're not filing claims...that's not how it's measured.
Third, not everyone who leaves the labor force is discouraged.


Again, he's mixing and matching completely different surveys. But as far as definitions:

If you worked during the reference week you are Employed.
If you did not work during the reference week, but actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks, you are Unemployed.
If you neither worked nor tried to work, you are Not in the Labor Force.

According to you, me, and common sense, someone who is "not unemployed" is employed.

No, that's not common sense. Does he really want to conisder retirees, full time students, stay home spouses, etc as Unemployed? Really?

You're unemployed if you're not working and trying to work...that's always been the definition. You can say you want a job all you want, but if you're not doing something about it, then in all practical effects and impact, it's no different than if you don't want a job.

That Obama Kool-Aid sure is yummy, isn't it? Have another glass.

And what exactly do you think Obama has to do with it? Looking for work has been the basic definition since they started measuring unemployment at all. FDR was president, then.

 

[NoNukes]

the economy requires approx. 130K jobs to just meet the employment requirements for new entrants into the work force.

you have been told this, at least 5 times that I know of, why the hell are you so hard headed? really? seriously? why?

Don't worry we will get there.

Obama is Reagan in 1984.

and your an idiot in 2011...!



Obama is NO Ronald Reagan.... not EVEN CLOSE!

If you are going to call someone an idiot, use proper English.

 

[Trajan]

Don't worry we will get there.

Obama is Reagan in 1984.

and your an idiot in 2011...!



Obama is NO Ronald Reagan.... not EVEN CLOSE!

If you are going to call someone an idiot, use proper English.

grammar police...of course.....dunce.

 

[Zander]

 

[Wiseacre]

Let's see where UE looks next summer. Great that it looks better now, hopefully it is sustained.

 

[NoNukes]

and your an idiot in 2011...!



Obama is NO Ronald Reagan.... not EVEN CLOSE!

If you are going to call someone an idiot, use proper English.

grammar police...of course.....dunce.

Yes, he is a dunce, thank you for pointing that out because I was being nice.

 

[daveman]

Perhaps you should read something by someone who knows what they're talking about.

Ok, that is correct.

True, but nothing to do with the Unemployment rate calculations. "New jobs" is a count of JOBS, not people (one person can hold more than one job) and is from the Current Employment Survey which surveys non-farm establishments. It excludes agriculture, the self employed, people who work in other people's houses, and unpaid family workers. Theses numbers are NOT used to calclute the UE rate. The UE rate comes from the Current Population Survey, which surveys households and includes everyone 16 and older not in prison, a mental institute, or the military. That showed an increase of 278,000 empoloyed persons from Oct to Nov.


First, the Labor Force dropped 315,000 in Nov. (Odd that he can't get the numbers right when the real numbers are worse than he claims).
Second, the CPS doesn't even ask about benefits so it's untrue to say anyone left the labor force because they're not filing claims...that's not how it's measured.
Third, not everyone who leaves the labor force is discouraged.


Again, he's mixing and matching completely different surveys. But as far as definitions:

If you worked during the reference week you are Employed.
If you did not work during the reference week, but actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks, you are Unemployed.
If you neither worked nor tried to work, you are Not in the Labor Force.
No, that's not common sense. Does he really want to conisder retirees, full time students, stay home spouses, etc as Unemployed? Really?

You're unemployed if you're not working and trying to work...that's always been the definition. You can say you want a job all you want, but if you're not doing something about it, then in all practical effects and impact, it's no different than if you don't want a job.

That Obama Kool-Aid sure is yummy, isn't it? Have another glass.

And what exactly do you think Obama has to do with it? Looking for work has been the basic definition since they started measuring unemployment at all. FDR was president, then.

Guess you deliberately missed the distortions, huh?

 

[The Infidel]

If you are going to call someone an idiot, use proper English.

grammar police...of course.....dunce.

Yes, he is a dunce, thank you for pointing that out because I was being nice.

 

[pinqy]

That Obama Kool-Aid sure is yummy, isn't it? Have another glass.

And what exactly do you think Obama has to do with it? Looking for work has been the basic definition since they started measuring unemployment at all. FDR was president, then.

Guess you deliberately missed the distortions, huh?

There weren't any "distortions." The methodology has been pretty consistant over the decades. Please point what you think that Obama has done differently to "distort" the numbers...there have been no changes.