Unemployment falls to 8.3%

[pinqy]

bigreb, your point means nothing, as you argument means nothing.

It's not my point it's the BLS.

No, it's your misinterpretation of what BLS says. They're saying the insured Unemployment rate , which they don't do, doesn't count people not receiving benefits. Call, and tell me who you spoke to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

huh... raw data says we lost 2.3 million jobs. It has been fudged by how they are choosing to report the numbers with silly little tricks like seasonal adjustments and labor force participation rate decreases.

I would love to see the same standards applied to previous years and see how good the numbers would get while the 'bush recession' lie was going on post 9/11.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge

Latest Congressional Budget Outlook For 2012-2022 Released, Says Real Unemployment Rate Is 10% | ZeroHedge

Oh well, all's fair in politics and war in an election year, eh Obama-sycophants?

All of that propaganda has been debunked. Try to keep up.

 

[Big Fitz]

ONE MORE TIME I AM NOT SAYING THEY USE UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS TO MEASURE UNEMPLOYMENT,ENT. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT IF A PERSON LOSES THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT THEY ARE NO LONGER UNEMPLOYED DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY STARTED WORKING OR NOT. WHEN THEY LOSE THEIR BENEFITS THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS GO DOWN.

Stupidity, thy name is Bigreb.

actually Reb is right on this point. It's how they're fudging the numbers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bottom line is, the rightwing naysayers on this trying to move the goalposts, rewrite the measurement rules, go through convoluted number crunching acrobatics all to try to convince people that the truth is not the truth

are going to end up accomplishing nothing.

Normal people, who vote, don't crunch numbers to figure out how the economy is doing.

1. They look at their own situation. 2. They look at their family and friends' situation. 3. They look at their community's situation.

The FACT that things are getting better will show up in 1,2,3, and will not trump the interminable ramblings of Obamahaters in the blogosphere and on the airwaves.

 

[grunt11b]

When you factor in all of the people who just quit looking for work and those that have settled with just living off of welfare, I guess it WOULD drop the unemployment rate. And if 8.3% unemployment is something to cheer about, that is pathetic. This is the democrat economy folks, 8.3% unemployment is something to cheer about. Way to lower tha bar Berry "And followers".
For those who have been effected by this president and his ignorant minions, just do what you can to get through, we will take the country back and set things right and help you get back to work.

 

[edthecynic]

You are confusing the issue with your scatterbrain perception. Have I said they did? I said that when a person who is disqualified for unemployment insurance for what ever reason they are no longer considered unemployed, doesn't matter if they have found a job or not.

And we keep telling you that's not true and that it says it's not true in your own link ... Insured unemployed is seperate an not part of the calculations.

Tell you what, though I doubt you'll do it, ask yourself at the CPS contact page or call 202-691-6378 and ask if, for the UE rate, people not on benefits are included and tell us what they say.

Who are the we you speak of? You and Ed the liar?
Why are you arguing with the BLS? What I posted came from their web site.

From the BLS

How the Government Measures Unemployment

What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?
The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.

What do the unemployment insurance (UI) figures measure?

In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:

Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits
Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force)
Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker discharged for misconduct on the job
Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits

ONE MORE TIME I AM NOT SAYING THEY USE UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS TO MEASURE UNEMPLOYMENT,ENT. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT IF A PERSON LOSES THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT THEY ARE NO LONGER UNEMPLOYED DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY STARTED WORKING OR NOT. WHEN THEY LOSE THEIR BENEFITS THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS GO DOWN.

You just keep repeating YOUR lies. Do you really think that if you repeat YOUR lies and say that YOUR lies are from the BLS that YOUR lies will suddenly stop being your LIES???

Right after the part on UI that you quote comes this part that explains why the BLS does not use UI to define the unemployed.

Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a count of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, during 2008, only 36 percent of the total unemployed received UI benefits. The weekly data on UI claims do have important uses, however, and provide a timely indicator on labor market conditions.

And you also leave out what the BLS defines as unemployed.

Who is counted as unemployed?

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

• Contacting:
  • An employer directly or having a job interview
  • A public or private employment agency
  • Friends or relatives
  • A school or university employment center
• Sending out resumes or filling out applications
• Placing or answering advertisements
• Checking union or professional registers
• Some other means of active job search

Passive methods of job search do not have the potential to result in a job offer and therefore do not qualify as active job search methods. Examples of passive methods include attending a job training program or course, or merely reading about job openings that are posted in newspapers or on the Internet.
Workers expecting to be recalled from temporary layoff are counted as unemployed, whether or not they have engaged in a specific jobseeking activity. In all other cases, the individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks preceding the interview and be available for work (except for temporary illness).

 

[Big Fitz]

Bottom line is, the rightwing naysayers on this trying to move the goalposts, rewrite the measurement rules, go through convoluted number crunching acrobatics all to try to convince people that the truth is not the truth

are going to end up accomplishing nothing.

Normal people, who vote, don't crunch numbers to figure out how the economy is doing.

1. They look at their own situation. 2. They look at their family and friends' situation. 3. They look at their community's situation.

The FACT that things are getting better will show up in 1,2,3, and will not trump the interminable ramblings of Obamahaters in the blogosphere and on the airwaves.

So the actual RAW DATA decline of 2.3 million jobs in 2 months isn't something to be concerned about because we can 'seasonally adjust' some away and ignore those who have run out of unemployment benefits without benefit of a new job?

Gotcha. Nope. No moving the goalposts to the left here.

 

[edthecynic]

huh... raw data says we lost 2.3 million jobs. It has been fudged by how they are choosing to report the numbers with silly little tricks like seasonal adjustments and labor force participation rate decreases.

I would love to see the same standards applied to previous years and see how good the numbers would get while the 'bush recession' lie was going on post 9/11.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge

Latest Congressional Budget Outlook For 2012-2022 Released, Says Real Unemployment Rate Is 10% | ZeroHedge

Oh well, all's fair in politics and war in an election year, eh Obama-sycophants?

Well, if we use the same standards you CON$ are using for Obama and applied them to the Bush Regime, Bush doubled UE from 10% when he started to 20% when he left.

 

[Big Fitz]

Remember when the left used to complain about 'underemployed' people when W was in office? Now? Not so much... they're 'employed' now so we should all STFU.

 

[Big Fitz]

huh... raw data says we lost 2.3 million jobs. It has been fudged by how they are choosing to report the numbers with silly little tricks like seasonal adjustments and labor force participation rate decreases.

I would love to see the same standards applied to previous years and see how good the numbers would get while the 'bush recession' lie was going on post 9/11.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge

Latest Congressional Budget Outlook For 2012-2022 Released, Says Real Unemployment Rate Is 10% | ZeroHedge

Oh well, all's fair in politics and war in an election year, eh Obama-sycophants?

Well, if we use the same standards you CON$ are using for Obama and applied them to the Bush Regime, Bush doubled UE from 10% when he started to 20% when he left.

Interesting that the numbers show the rise starts in 2007 when the housing bubble popped and REALLY spiked started in November 2008 when P-BO was elected....


coincidence or causation in the market? hmmmmmmm......

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And we keep telling you that's not true and that it says it's not true in your own link ... Insured unemployed is seperate an not part of the calculations.

Tell you what, though I doubt you'll do it, ask yourself at the CPS contact page or call 202-691-6378 and ask if, for the UE rate, people not on benefits are included and tell us what they say.

Who are the we you speak of? You and Ed the liar?
Why are you arguing with the BLS? What I posted came from their web site.

From the BLS
What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?
The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.


ONE MORE TIME I AM NOT SAYING THEY USE UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS TO MEASURE UNEMPLOYMENT,ENT. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT IF A PERSON LOSES THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT THEY ARE NO LONGER UNEMPLOYED DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY STARTED WORKING OR NOT. WHEN THEY LOSE THEIR BENEFITS THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS GO DOWN.

You just keep repeating YOUR lies. Do you really think that if you repeat YOUR lies and say that YOUR lies are from the BLS that YOUR lies will suddenly stop being your LIES???

Right after the part on UI that you quote comes this part that explains why the BLS does not use UI to define the unemployed.

Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a count of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, during 2008, only 36 percent of the total unemployed received UI benefits. The weekly data on UI claims do have important uses, however, and provide a timely indicator on labor market conditions.

And you also leave out what the BLS defines as unemployed.

Who is counted as unemployed?

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

• Contacting:
  • An employer directly or having a job interview
  • A public or private employment agency
  • Friends or relatives
  • A school or university employment center
• Sending out resumes or filling out applications
• Placing or answering advertisements
• Checking union or professional registers
• Some other means of active job search

Passive methods of job search do not have the potential to result in a job offer and therefore do not qualify as active job search methods. Examples of passive methods include attending a job training program or course, or merely reading about job openings that are posted in newspapers or on the Internet.
Workers expecting to be recalled from temporary layoff are counted as unemployed, whether or not they have engaged in a specific jobseeking activity. In all other cases, the individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks preceding the interview and be available for work (except for temporary illness).

And we keep telling you that's not true and that it says it's not true in your own link ... Insured unemployed is seperate an not part of the calculations.



ONE MORE TIME I AM NOT SAYING THEY USE UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS TO MEASURE UNEMPLOYMENT. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT IF A PERSON LOSES THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT THEY ARE NO LONGER UNEMPLOYED DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY STARTED WORKING OR NOT. WHEN THEY LOSE THEIR BENEFITS THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS GO DOWN.
Do you understand this? Do not keep repeating that I am saying it. That is not what I am saying
This is from the BLS

What do the unemployment insurance (UI) figures measure?

In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:

Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits
Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force)
Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker discharged for misconduct on the job
Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits

Is this saying that the government no longer considers a person unemployed if he no longer receiving unemployment checks when they use the words

In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following

and follow up with

Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits

I'm saying they no longer keep a record of people who are not recieving unemployment, and when people drop from unemployment no matter if they are working unemployment numbers drop.
DO YOU ******* UNDERSTAND THIS?

 

[edthecynic]

huh... raw data says we lost 2.3 million jobs. It has been fudged by how they are choosing to report the numbers with silly little tricks like seasonal adjustments and labor force participation rate decreases.

I would love to see the same standards applied to previous years and see how good the numbers would get while the 'bush recession' lie was going on post 9/11.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge

Latest Congressional Budget Outlook For 2012-2022 Released, Says Real Unemployment Rate Is 10% | ZeroHedge

Oh well, all's fair in politics and war in an election year, eh Obama-sycophants?

Well, if we use the same standards you CON$ are using for Obama and applied them to the Bush Regime, Bush doubled UE from 10% when he started to 20% when he left.

Interesting that the numbers show the rise starts in 2007 when the housing bubble popped and REALLY spiked started in November 2008 when P-BO was elected....


coincidence or causation in the market? hmmmmmmm......

DittoTards will always find a way to blame anyone, everyone for the **** ups of their fellow CON$ervative Bush.
Please tell me what legislation Obama passed on the day he was elected that got past Bush's veto pen and a GOP filibuster that crashed the economy in December 2007?

 

[Big Fitz]

Well, if we use the same standards you CON$ are using for Obama and applied them to the Bush Regime, Bush doubled UE from 10% when he started to 20% when he left.

Interesting that the numbers show the rise starts in 2007 when the housing bubble popped and REALLY spiked started in November 2008 when P-BO was elected....


coincidence or causation in the market? hmmmmmmm......

DittoTards will always find a way to blame anyone, everyone for the **** ups of their fellow CON$ervative Bush.
Please tell me what legislation Obama passed on the day he was elected that got past Bush's veto pen and a GOP filibuster that crashed the economy in December 2007?

Just a president's very election can set the market in motion. They don't need to do a damn thing. Like when Reagan was elected, darn near the next day the hostages were released because the Iranians, (and democrats here) believed he'd be crazy enough to nuke Tehran. The week after W declared that the presidential drilling moratorium was to be ended, gas prices plumetted to their uninflated price of around 1.60 (which had risen to around 1.80 till Obama's policies have over time, nearly doubled that. So it is not impossible that the market reacted by assuming worst case scenarios were coming under the Obama admin... which they were still a little too optimistic.

Did W make huge mistakes with the bailouts? **** yeah! Is he directly to blame for this unemployment spike? not even close. That spike is on the market reacting to a president who has no clue how to assist business be profitable, but is interested instead on harming it every way possible. I'd pull back too if I owned a company if I saw a dipshit of this magnitude get elected.

You got the president you wanted and the consequences that went with it.

But do continue to blame BOOOOOOOOOSH! I swear, I wish there was a vaccine for people like you.

 

[edthecynic]

Who are the we you speak of? You and Ed the liar?
Why are you arguing with the BLS? What I posted came from their web site.

From the BLS
What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?
The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.


ONE MORE TIME I AM NOT SAYING THEY USE UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS TO MEASURE UNEMPLOYMENT,ENT. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT IF A PERSON LOSES THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT THEY ARE NO LONGER UNEMPLOYED DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY STARTED WORKING OR NOT. WHEN THEY LOSE THEIR BENEFITS THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS GO DOWN.

You just keep repeating YOUR lies. Do you really think that if you repeat YOUR lies and say that YOUR lies are from the BLS that YOUR lies will suddenly stop being your LIES???

Right after the part on UI that you quote comes this part that explains why the BLS does not use UI to define the unemployed.



And you also leave out what the BLS defines as unemployed.

And we keep telling you that's not true and that it says it's not true in your own link ... Insured unemployed is seperate an not part of the calculations.



ONE MORE TIME I AM NOT SAYING THEY USE UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS TO MEASURE UNEMPLOYMENT. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT IF A PERSON LOSES THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT THEY ARE NO LONGER UNEMPLOYED DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY STARTED WORKING OR NOT. WHEN THEY LOSE THEIR BENEFITS THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS GO DOWN.
Do you understand this? Do not keep repeating that I am saying it. That is not what I am saying
This is from the BLS


Is this saying that the government no longer considers a person unemployed if he no longer receiving unemployment checks when they use the words

In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following

and follow up with

Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits

I'm saying they no longer keep a record of people who are not recieving unemployment, and when people drop from unemployment no matter if they are working unemployment numbers drop.
DO YOU ******* UNDERSTAND THIS?

No, it is saying they are no longer considered INSURED unemployed, it does not say that they are no longer considered unemployed. It is YOU who are leaving out the word INSURED, not BLS. The BLS cleatly says that when their UI runs out they are STILL considered unemployed if they are still looking for work.

Again from YOUR own BLS link, a BLS summary of who is unemployed.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

Unemployed persons are:

• All persons who did not have a job at all during the survey reference week, made at least one specific active effort to find a job during the prior 4 weeks, and were available for work (unless temporarily ill).
• All persons who were not working and were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off (they need not be looking for work to be classified as unemployed).

 

[saveliberty]

Interesting how that unemployment line trends DOWN until the very end...

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the UI no longer have benefits and are still looking for work, they are counted as looking for work.

bigreb has trouble understanding this, or he is outright falsifying again, as he did the GA judge's ruling on BHO's eligibility.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You just keep repeating YOUR lies. Do you really think that if you repeat YOUR lies and say that YOUR lies are from the BLS that YOUR lies will suddenly stop being your LIES???

Right after the part on UI that you quote comes this part that explains why the BLS does not use UI to define the unemployed.



And you also leave out what the BLS defines as unemployed.

And we keep telling you that's not true and that it says it's not true in your own link ... Insured unemployed is seperate an not part of the calculations.



ONE MORE TIME I AM NOT SAYING THEY USE UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS TO MEASURE UNEMPLOYMENT. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT IF A PERSON LOSES THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT THEY ARE NO LONGER UNEMPLOYED DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY STARTED WORKING OR NOT. WHEN THEY LOSE THEIR BENEFITS THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS GO DOWN.
Do you understand this? Do not keep repeating that I am saying it. That is not what I am saying
This is from the BLS


Is this saying that the government no longer considers a person unemployed if he no longer receiving unemployment checks when they use the words

and follow up with
I'm saying they no longer keep a record of people who are not recieving unemployment, and when people drop from unemployment no matter if they are working unemployment numbers drop.
DO YOU ******* UNDERSTAND THIS?

No, it is saying they are no longer considered INSURED unemployed, it does not say that they are no longer considered unemployed. It is YOU who are leaving out the word INSURED, not BLS. The BLS cleatly says that when their UI runs out they are STILL considered unemployed if they are still looking for work.

Again from YOUR own BLS link, a BLS summary of who is unemployed.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

Unemployed persons are:

• All persons who did not have a job at all during the survey reference week, made at least one specific active effort to find a job during the prior 4 weeks, and were available for work (unless temporarily ill).
• All persons who were not working and were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off (they need not be looking for work to be classified as unemployed).

No, it is saying they are no longer considered INSURED unemployed, it does not say that they are no longer considered unemployed. It is YOU who are leaving out the word INSURED, not BLS. The BLS cleatly says that when their UI runs out they are STILL considered unemployed if they are still looking for work.

Somebody else help this dumb ass.^^^^^^^^^^
If people are no longer receiving unemployment checks does the government consider them employed or unemployed?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If the UI no longer have benefits and are still looking for work, they are counted as looking for work.

bigreb has trouble understanding this, or he is outright falsifying again, as he did the GA judge's ruling on BHO's eligibility.

Liar.

 

[edthecynic]

Interesting that the numbers show the rise starts in 2007 when the housing bubble popped and REALLY spiked started in November 2008 when P-BO was elected....


coincidence or causation in the market? hmmmmmmm......

DittoTards will always find a way to blame anyone, everyone for the **** ups of their fellow CON$ervative Bush.
Please tell me what legislation Obama passed on the day he was elected that got past Bush's veto pen and a GOP filibuster that crashed the economy in December 2007?

Just a president's very election can set the market in motion. They don't need to do a damn thing. Like when Reagan was elected, darn near the next day the hostages were released because the Iranians, (and democrats here) believed he'd be crazy enough to nuke Tehran. The week after W declared that the presidential drilling moratorium was to be ended, gas prices plumetted to their uninflated price of around 1.60 (which had risen to around 1.80 till Obama's policies have over time, nearly doubled that. So it is not impossible that the market reacted by assuming worst case scenarios were coming under the Obama admin... which they were still a little too optimistic.

Did W make huge mistakes with the bailouts? **** yeah! Is he directly to blame for this unemployment spike? not even close. That spike is on the market reacting to a president who has no clue how to assist business be profitable, but is interested instead on harming it every way possible. I'd pull back too if I owned a company if I saw a dipshit of this magnitude get elected.

You got the president you wanted and the consequences that went with it.

But do continue to blame BOOOOOOOOOSH! I swear, I wish there was a vaccine for people like you.

BULLSHIT!

Reagan's partners held the hostages for St Ronnie till after the election as they had agreed. Oil prices were already heading down days before the lying BushWhacker pretended to open up drilling that was still banned by the individual states involved.

But do continue to blame Obama for Bush's **** ups that happened before Obama was elected. Your Obama Derangement Syndrome makes you look brilliant as you parrot your MessiahRushie.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Scrolling down through this thread, a couple things become obvious:

1. The extreme LibDems seem overly optimistic. Yes, I would agree things are getting better out there. But we have some fundamental problems with our economy that this president neither caused nor can he fix.
2. The extreme ConservaRepubLitarians are so party-before-country on this. They yell and scream that nothing can get better or will get better while Obama is president. That's just foolish. Obama is not all-powerful. He has not stopped companies from hiring in the past. He is not the reason companies are hiring people now. Don't be so hysterical guys. It's okay if the country gets better!

And it is getting better.