Unemployment falls to 8.3%

[Big Fitz]

The Republican spin machine is heating up, shaking uncontrollably, and smoking.

It may come apart at any minute.

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.

Is that the new seminar talking point? It's only the 4th time you've cut and pasted it.

 

[Chris]

The Republican spin machine is heating up, shaking uncontrollably, and smoking.

It may come apart at any minute.

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.

Is that the new seminar talking point? It's only the 4th time you've cut and pasted it.

The truth never gets old.

 

[jreeves]

The Republican spin machine is heating up, shaking uncontrollably, and smoking.

It may come apart at any minute.

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.

Spin machine???

Trying to pass an 8% unemployment rate off as great news....is spin

Not very good spin, but's spin nonetheless.

Of course if Obama was murdering babies one by one....you would defend him.

 

[zonly1]

The USMB Right Wingnut Brigade meltdown over good economic news continues.

did you bother to count the workers that gave up? the working pool class is not increasing based on the numbers but your to dumb to realize it. just continue to be spoon feed lies and one legged prop ups...like pavlov's dog...bark...heel...droool...good boy.

Good news for America really bothers you. I can tell.

you can't add that is what bothers me. you are clueless that started the housing bubble and are clueless on BLS doesnt quit state why a few months ago it was 99 million americans looking for work and today it illustrates 1.2 million more are in this area but of course you can't add and blinded by pavlov's dog. ring...ring...carry on loozer.

 

[zonly1]

Don't worry, nutters, I'm sure this is just the market reacting to Romney's guaranteed win in November.

who is scared now chicken little?

 

[zonly1]

No one believes that.

Not even you.

Still speaking out your ass.

Are you saying that the dems didn't take over congress in Jan 2007 ?

You can blame it all on Bush.....but if we dare to give Obama credit 3 years (3/4 of his term) for the fact this mess hasn't gotten any better....all you do is bring up Bush.

You are pathetic only on your good days.

Things have been getting better.

We were losing 700k jobs month and 5% GDP a quarter when Obama took office. The economy was in a tail spin.

Now look.

This is why you people are getting laughed at and mocked.

ah you have been measured to be fullacrapola

 

[zonly1]

No one believes that.

Not even you.

Still speaking out your ass.

Are you saying that the dems didn't take over congress in Jan 2007 ?

You can blame it all on Bush.....but if we dare to give Obama credit 3 years (3/4 of his term) for the fact this mess hasn't gotten any better....all you do is bring up Bush.

You are pathetic only on your good days.

Things have been getting better.

We were losing 700k jobs month and 5% GDP a quarter when Obama took office. The economy was in a tail spin.

Now look.

This is why you people are getting laughed at and mocked.

moronicus maximus you forgot debt to gdp...but by all means deflect facts.

we are not laughing with you but at YOU

 

[zonly1]

BTW I love how you went from "things aren't getting any better" to "things are getting better in spite of Obama" in back to back posts.

Well done!

I love how you gays can't do math...carryon with irrelevant self worthless opine.

 

[Big Fitz]

The Republican spin machine is heating up, shaking uncontrollably, and smoking.

It may come apart at any minute.

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.

Is that the new seminar talking point? It's only the 4th time you've cut and pasted it.

The truth never gets old.

If it was truth, I'd agree with you. But since it isn't, I figured you were practicing Goebbel's Big Lie philosophy as is oft done by the left's stooges.

 

[saveliberty]

Where did Ed say otherwise? All I saw was him saying that retirees and disabled were in the not in the labor force category, which is true. Where did he say they were considered marginally attached?

He states it by including them in the 1.2 million marginally attached on several occassions.

What 1.2 million marginally attached? There are 2.8 million MA, with 1.8 million for reasons other than discouragement. He was talking about the 1.2 million added to not in the labor force by the adjustments.

I am a little shocked you are playing games here pinqy. Ed specifically tried to place most of the 1.2 million into the retiree and disabled category. How quickly you have forgotten the very subsets you went on about last night.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Republican spin machine is heating up, shaking uncontrollably, and smoking. It may come apart at any minute. Obama is the Democrats Reagan.

Spin machine??? Trying to pass an 8% unemployment rate off as great news....is spin Not very good spin, but's spin nonetheless. Of course if Obama was murdering babies one by one....you would defend him.

You are both spinning the news. It is news that give some hope but not news that says we are out of the woods.

The comment about babies was stupid.

 

[pinqy]

He states it by including them in the 1.2 million marginally attached on several occassions.

What 1.2 million marginally attached? There are 2.8 million MA, with 1.8 million for reasons other than discouragement. He was talking about the 1.2 million added to not in the labor force by the adjustments.

I am a little shocked you are playing games here pinqy.

What games? the numbers I gave are accurate.

Ed specifically tried to place most of the 1.2 million into the retiree and disabled category.

Ok, let's check. To review:
Not in the Labor Force = not working and not looking for work.
Persons who currently want a job= Subset of not in the labor force say they want to work.
Marginally Attached = subset of currently want a job, the MA are available to work now, and have looked for work in the last 12 months (but not last 4 weeks).
Discouraged = subset of marginally attached, specific reason for not looking is belief they will not find work.

By the CPS, before the pop controls, the NILF category went down 75,000 (seasonally adjusted). Population controls added 1,252,000 to the count making the effective change +1,177,000. (Employment Situation Summary and Table A-1).

We don't know the pop control effect on any of the subgroups of NILF, so we have to look at the recorded changes:

Not in the Labor Force went from 86,697,000 to 87,874,000, a change of 1,177,000.

Persons who currently want a job went from 6,385,000 to 6,319,000, a change of -66,000 (Table A-1, seasonally adjusted)

Marginally Attached went from 2,540,000 to 2,809,000, a change of 269,000.

discouraged went from 945,000 to 1,059,000, a change of 114,000 (note that that's part of the +269,000 change for total Marginally Attached)
Source: archives for Table A-16, NOT seasonally adjusted.


Double checking for retirees and disabled. From archives for Table A-6 that the number of disabled Not in the Labor Force went from 21,687,000 to 21,979,000 a change of 292,000 and 65+ (not disabled to avoid overlap) Not in the Labor Force went from 21,475,000 to 22,052,000, a change of 577,000. So total change to disabled and retirement age Not in the Labor Force was +869,000

Ed appears to be correct that most of the change was to retirees and disabled. Of course, one of the issues is that marginally attached and discouraged are not seasonally adjusted (groups are too small and no seasonal pattern can be calculated with any kind of accuracy) but even switching to look at not seasonally adjusted NILF and "currently want a job" from the archived Table A-16, it's clear that the biggest changes were NOT to Marginally Attached or Discouraged.

Now, I can't seperate out disabled from the 16-19 age group, but that went up by 398,000 as well.

How quickly you have forgotten the very subsets you went on about last night.

I haven't forgotten them, I'm analyzing correctly.

Haven't y'all figured out yet that I do this professionally? I regularly talk to the experts at BLS, Census, and foreign governments about these measurements.

 

[grunt11b]

Fudging the Numbers - Cal Thomas - Townhall Conservative

 

[pinqy]

Fudging the Numbers - Cal Thomas - Townhall Conservative

He's making the same false comparison by implying that Not in the Labor Force means "gave up looking." While that is true for some, the vast majority of those Not in the Labor Force (92.8%) don't WANT a job. If someone retires, they go from Employed to Not in the Labor Force. That's certainly not "stopped looking."

Cal Thomas is neither an economist nor statistician.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fudging the Numbers - Cal Thomas - Townhall Conservative

CURL: Obama's made-up jobless numbers - Washington Times

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fudging the Numbers - Cal Thomas - Townhall Conservative

CURL: Obama's made-up jobless numbers - Washington Times

The are misinterpreting the numbers.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fudging the Numbers - Cal Thomas - Townhall Conservative

CURL: Obama's made-up jobless numbers - Washington Times

David Stockman: The statistics coming out of the BLS and BEA are "The Economists' Truman Show"
David Stockman: The statistics coming out of the BLS and BEA are "The Economists' Truman Show"

Two bright people might see sharply different things in those numbers. To one, the shrinking economy is a healthy unwinding of past excess, for example, while to another it’s a dangerous downturn that calls for bold government action. But what if the numbers themselves are something we should be debating? In the alarming view of a vocal few, America’s economic measures are misstated -- rigged, really.

The accusation goes like this: Surveyors collect the nation’s data and statisticians compile and report it. Politicians naturally want the numbers to show improvement. Not being able to change the facts, they focus on the handling of facts, pressuring statisticians to change their measurements. It’s not quite one grand conspiracy but decades of minor ones compiled. Today’s reports are so perverted, the theory holds, that the numbers have detached from common experience.

  True or False: U.S. Economic Stats Lie    : Information Clearing House - ICH

 

[pinqy]

Fudging the Numbers - Cal Thomas - Townhall Conservative

CURL: Obama's made-up jobless numbers - Washington Times

The are misinterpreting the numbers.

Exactly. Adding to "not in the labor force" does not mean subtracting from the labor force in every case.

 

[saveliberty]

What 1.2 million marginally attached? There are 2.8 million MA, with 1.8 million for reasons other than discouragement. He was talking about the 1.2 million added to not in the labor force by the adjustments.

I am a little shocked you are playing games here pinqy.

What games? the numbers I gave are accurate.

Ed specifically tried to place most of the 1.2 million into the retiree and disabled category.

Ok, let's check. To review:
Not in the Labor Force = not working and not looking for work.
Persons who currently want a job= Subset of not in the labor force say they want to work.
Marginally Attached = subset of currently want a job, the MA are available to work now, and have looked for work in the last 12 months (but not last 4 weeks).
Discouraged = subset of marginally attached, specific reason for not looking is belief they will not find work.

By the CPS, before the pop controls, the NILF category went down 75,000 (seasonally adjusted). Population controls added 1,252,000 to the count making the effective change +1,177,000. (Employment Situation Summary and Table A-1).

We don't know the pop control effect on any of the subgroups of NILF, so we have to look at the recorded changes:

Not in the Labor Force went from 86,697,000 to 87,874,000, a change of 1,177,000.

Persons who currently want a job went from 6,385,000 to 6,319,000, a change of -66,000 (Table A-1, seasonally adjusted)

Marginally Attached went from 2,540,000 to 2,809,000, a change of 269,000.

discouraged went from 945,000 to 1,059,000, a change of 114,000 (note that that's part of the +269,000 change for total Marginally Attached)
Source: archives for Table A-16, NOT seasonally adjusted.


Double checking for retirees and disabled. From archives for Table A-6 that the number of disabled Not in the Labor Force went from 21,687,000 to 21,979,000 a change of 292,000 and 65+ (not disabled to avoid overlap) Not in the Labor Force went from 21,475,000 to 22,052,000, a change of 577,000. So total change to disabled and retirement age Not in the Labor Force was +869,000

Ed appears to be correct that most of the change was to retirees and disabled. Of course, one of the issues is that marginally attached and discouraged are not seasonally adjusted (groups are too small and no seasonal pattern can be calculated with any kind of accuracy) but even switching to look at not seasonally adjusted NILF and "currently want a job" from the archived Table A-16, it's clear that the biggest changes were NOT to Marginally Attached or Discouraged.

Now, I can't seperate out disabled from the 16-19 age group, but that went up by 398,000 as well.

How quickly you have forgotten the very subsets you went on about last night.

I haven't forgotten them, I'm analyzing correctly.

Haven't y'all figured out yet that I do this professionally? I regularly talk to the experts at BLS, Census, and foreign governments about these measurements.

I was guessing econ prof myself. Certainly have learned a few things in this thread. What we have here is an adjustment made from Census data which was flawed from the start. Then we combine that with a BLS survey conducted by the Census Bureau and it gets even less accurate. Appreciate your input, even if I disagree with the results sometimes.

 

[Listening]

The truth never gets old.

But your B.S. does.