Unemployment Way Down to 9.7 Percent.

[Maple]

The Bush Administration had created the January, 2009, unemployment rate of 7.7% because it hated Americans. It had even sent Americans off to die, basis-free, not exactly defending New York City: From Saudi attacks(?)!

Anyone would have guessed that the 19 dead no-accounts were actually fanatics: But America-hating Republicans knew better than to not hate-Americans--sending them off to die, and on and on.

The .3% unemployment rate drop is actually 13% of the way back to that--even now!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(And actually, it's all very legal!)

Your post makes absolutely noooooooooooooooooooooo sense.

 

[SFC Ollie]

OK, I'm confused here.

Some one said that we lost 22,000 jobs

There were 480,000 new unemployment initial claims.

The unemployment numbers went down?

Why can't I see the math behind this miracle?

 

[Zona]

Sadly according to the federal information mill, enough people dropped out of the Labor Force that Unemployment is plummeting.

The American Sheeple will believe anything.

Who said its plummeting? You did. Sheeple...fox sheeple.

By the way, would it be better if it was going up?

 

[pinqy]

Sadly according to the federal information mill, enough people dropped out of the Labor Force that Unemployment is plummeting.

Labor Force
December 2009: 153,059,000
January 2010: 153,170,000

So what math are you using? The Labor Force went UP.

Pinko, you never can keep up with reality, can you? What is the population? How much has it increased in the past month? How many people came of age in the past month? How many immigrants did we have in the last month?

You said "Labor Force." Which went UP. So more people joined the labor force than left it. As for the population the civilian non-instituional population, on which the labor force statistics are based, went DOWN from 236,924,000 to 236,832,000

Do you honestly believe that the REAL labor force went up, or do you believe that the fake labor force went up?

The labor force is the labor force..there's no "real" or "fake" to it.

Do you believe anything, or just the lies of the Obama administration?

I was saying the same things during the Bush administration.

Or is your propensity to support the most dishonest administration in American history just an act for the fun of it?

I'm neutral...I neither support nor oppose the current administration. The statistics have nothing at all to do with who's president...the methodology hasn't changed.

 

[Neubarth]

.... current administration. The statistics have nothing at all to do with who's president...the methodology hasn't changed.

If you tell a lie boldly enough, frequently enough and loud enough, it WILL be believed. Well, I won't believe it, but most people will.

As I have stated, countless times, all of the Government numbers are crap and are only for fools to believe.

 

[pinqy]

.... current administration. The statistics have nothing at all to do with who's president...the methodology hasn't changed.

If you tell a lie boldly enough, frequently enough and loud enough, it WILL be believed. Well, I won't believe it, but most people will.

As I have stated, countless times, all of the Government numbers are crap and are only for fools to believe.

Apparently you're talking about your own method. All I hear from you is assertion after assertion with not even an attempt to provide a single shred of evidence, let alone proof. Oh, wait, you have proof, but it's secret and no one else can see it.

Pull the other one, it plays jingle-bells.

 

[pinqy]

OK, I'm confused here.

Some one said that we lost 22,000 jobs

There were 480,000 new unemployment initial claims.

The unemployment numbers went down?

Why can't I see the math behind this miracle?

You can...you just don't know where to look.

First, you're talking about 3 completely different dat sets.

There are the Unemployment Insurances Initial Claims. This is weekly, comes from the state UI offices to the US Dept of Labor. These only measure new claims for UI...not employment, and not all unemployed. Released every Thursday: UI report

Next is Employment. This comes from the Current Employment Statistics, a monthly survey of 140,000 businesses (410,000 worksites) conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Coverage period is the Pay Period that includes the 12th of the month. It only covers non-farm payroll jobs, so it excludes farm workers, the self employed, and domestic workers. It's a measure of jobs, not people...if a person holds two jobs, they're counted twice. But it's a fairly large sample, and the margin of error is not too great so it's the most accurate measure of employment, despite the limits of who is covered. Released on the first Friday of every month. Link: Technical notes to the CES

And last is Unemployment. This comes from the Current Population Survey, a monthly survey of 60,000 households conducted by the Census Bureau on the behalf of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This measures the Labor Force. It measures People, not jobs. The population is the civilian non-institutional population (those 16 and older not in prison, the military, or long-term physical or mental care facility). Coverage period is the week that contains the 12th of the month. People are asked if they worked during the reference week. If yes, they're employed. If no, they're asked if they looked for work in the 4 week up to the reference week. If yes, they're Unemployed. Employed + Unemployed = The Labor Force....all those actually participating in the Labor market. The rest of the population is "Not in the Labor Force." Some are "Marginally Attached," meaning they had looked sometime in the previous 12 months but aren't looking now for whatever reason but want to and are able to work. That's kind of subjective...they say they want to work, but they're not actually trying to. The preference, since 1941, has been to measure those actually participating, not those who would theoretically participate. Link: CPS technical documentation

So...UI claims went up and down.
Employment (from the CES) went down 20,000, but the margin of error is close to 100,000, so the change is not statistically significant.

However, Employment from the CPS went UP. Remember, slightly different reference period, different sample, different concepts (For someone with two jobs, the CES counts twice while the CPS counts once. If a person loses one job, the CES will show a loss, while the CPS will show no change). And Unemployment went DOWN. So the Unemployment rate went down, even though though the official employment number went down.

 

[Neubarth]

OK, I'm confused here.

Some one said that we lost 22,000 jobs

There were 480,000 new unemployment initial claims.

The unemployment numbers went down?

Why can't I see the math behind this miracle?

You can...you just don't know where to look.

First, you're talking about 3 completely different dat sets.

There are the Unemployment Insurances Initial Claims. This is weekly, comes from the state UI offices to the US Dept of Labor. These only measure new claims for UI...not employment, and not all unemployed. Released every Thursday: UI report

Next is Employment. This comes from the Current Employment Statistics, a monthly survey of 140,000 businesses (410,000 worksites) conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Coverage period is the Pay Period that includes the 12th of the month. It only covers non-farm payroll jobs, so it excludes farm workers, the self employed, and domestic workers. It's a measure of jobs, not people...if a person holds two jobs, they're counted twice. But it's a fairly large sample, and the margin of error is not too great so it's the most accurate measure of employment, despite the limits of who is covered. Released on the first Friday of every month. Link: Technical notes to the CES

And last is Unemployment. This comes from the Current Population Survey, a monthly survey of 60,000 households conducted by the Census Bureau on the behalf of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This measures the Labor Force. It measures People, not jobs. The population is the civilian non-institutional population (those 16 and older not in prison, the military, or long-term physical or mental care facility). Coverage period is the week that contains the 12th of the month. People are asked if they worked during the reference week. If yes, they're employed. If no, they're asked if they looked for work in the 4 week up to the reference week. If yes, they're Unemployed. Employed + Unemployed = The Labor Force....all those actually participating in the Labor market. The rest of the population is "Not in the Labor Force." Some are "Marginally Attached," meaning they had looked sometime in the previous 12 months but aren't looking now for whatever reason but want to and are able to work. That's kind of subjective...they say they want to work, but they're not actually trying to. The preference, since 1941, has been to measure those actually participating, not those who would theoretically participate. Link: CPS technical documentation

So...UI claims went up and down.
Employment (from the CES) went down 20,000, but the margin of error is close to 100,000, so the change is not statistically significant.

However, Employment from the CPS went UP. Remember, slightly different reference period, different sample, different concepts (For someone with two jobs, the CES counts twice while the CPS counts once. If a person loses one job, the CES will show a loss, while the CPS will show no change). And Unemployment went DOWN. So the Unemployment rate went down, even though though the official employment number went down.

NOTICE HOW THIS IS ALL JUST DOUBLE TALK AND OUTRIGHT FABRICATION? The reasons why these numbers do not substantiate each other is that they are being produced at the fantasy of individuals who do not compare their fantasy number with each other before posting them.

The actual Labor Force is a good twenty percent larger than the Federal government pretends.

The survey of businesses does appear to be a real survey. About twenty years ago I had an opportunity to interview several companies that were actually tabulating the numbers. For the most part their efforts are a second thought and are usually not accurate. One company said that they sent the same shit in month after months and year after year just to comply with the request. They had their base numbers that they maintained and would just vary the numbers around the base a little so it looked like they were tabulating everything carefully. The simple fact of the matter is that this survey is ineffectual and really does not show a cross sample of American business.

The personal survey is a sham. Nobody has ever known a person who was interviewed in this supposed survey. Even if there was such a survey, the numbers are so far off from reality that the survey mocks the unemployed. The actual number of people who are without a real job should be counted by two or three of our Universities in their various states and that should be used. Right now according to several universities that do conduct their own surveys, unemployment varies from about 25% in California to only 8 percent in North Dakota. The national average is about twenty percent unemployment. According to most of these university studies, a person working an odd job does not qualify as employed, unless they are working for the greater part of a week. Most university studies define that as five or more hours a week, IF the pay for the job is enough to support the individual and/or his family. In a Depression as bad as this one, many men will work a five hour a day job for minimum wage, knowing that is not enough to pay the rent and buy the food for the woman and the two kids, knowing that food stamps and school lunch programs will help feed the kids and the land lord will usually accept fifty percent of the rent with a promise to eventually pay the rest when a full time job becomes available. Both the landlord and the part time working man know that the full rent will never be paid, because the money will never really be there to do so.

 

[ProudFossil]

OK, I'm confused here.

Some one said that we lost 22,000 jobs

There were 480,000 new unemployment initial claims.

The unemployment numbers went down?

Why can't I see the math behind this miracle?

It is all in the numbers. They also reported that 49 of the 57 states showed an increase in unemployment. Those 49 states lost the 22,000 jobs and had 480,000 new claims. Now 8 states showed a decrease in unemployment. So they are simply reporting that those 8 states had an increase in employment of 541,000. Rather straightforward math (at least to the liars in DC).

 

[Neubarth]

OK, I'm confused here.

Some one said that we lost 22,000 jobs

There were 480,000 new unemployment initial claims.

The unemployment numbers went down?

Why can't I see the math behind this miracle?

It is all in the numbers. They also reported that 49 of the 57 states showed an increase in unemployment. Those 49 states lost the 22,000 jobs and had 480,000 new claims. Now 8 states showed a decrease in unemployment. So they are simply reporting that those 8 states had an increase in employment of 541,000. Rather straightforward math (at least to the liars in DC).

This is all that you need to see to know what is happening to the economy.

Weekly INITIAL UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMS These are the actual numbers of UI claims as reported each week by the states to the Corrupt Federal government. The Corrupt Federal Government will then modify the numbers to reflect any political issue they want to make.

Soaring in the past 19 weeks.

UNADJUSTED DATA

530,405 in the week ending Jan. 30
500,392 in the week ending Jan. 23
650,728 in the week ending Jan. 16
801,086 in the week ending Jan. 9
645,571 in the week ending Jan. 2
557,155 in the week ending Dec. 26
561,902 in the week ending Dec. 19
555,344 in the week ending Dec. 12
664,865 in the week ending Dec. 5
460,989 in the week ending Nov. 28
543,926 in the week ending Nov. 21
479,295 in the week ending Nov. 14
529,446 in the week ending Nov. 7
480,178 in the week ending Oct. 31
492,456 in the week ending Oct. 24
460,449 in the week ending Oct. 17
503,973 in the week ending Oct. 10
449,375 in the week ending Oct. 3
443,694 in the week ending Sept. 26
434,358 in the week ending Sept. 19
407,869 in the week ending Sept. 12


U.S. Department of Labor: Employment & Training Administration (ETA) News Releases

 

[pinqy]

It is all in the numbers. They also reported that 49 of the 57 states showed an increase in unemployment. Those 49 states lost the 22,000 jobs and had 480,000 new claims. Now 8 states showed a decrease in unemployment. So they are simply reporting that those 8 states had an increase in employment of 541,000. Rather straightforward math (at least to the liars in DC).

No they didn't report that any of the states showed an increase in unemployment. The state numbers for January don't come out for another couple of weeks.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Twenty-one states reported statistically significant over-the-month
unemployment rate increases in December. Louisiana and Mississippi
experienced the largest of these (+0.8 percentage point each). One
state, South Dakota, saw a statistically significant rate decrease
from November (-0.2 percentage point). The remaining 28 states and
the District of Columbia registered jobless rates that were not
appreciably different from those of a month earlier

Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary

 

[SFC Ollie]

Jan 22 2010, 12:34 pm by Daniel Indiviglio
State Unemployment Data Darkens Jobs Picture

Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released December's state-by-state unemployment data. It isn't pretty. Even though the national rate was unchanged last month, most states saw their unemployment rates worsen. 43 states and the District of Columbia saw their unemployment rates increase from November to December, many significantly. This is a major change-in-direction from November's good news, when 36 states saw their unemployment rates decline.

State Unemployment Data Darkens Jobs Picture - The Atlantic Business Channel

 

[Terral]

Hi Neubarth:

Sadly according to the federal information mill, enough people dropped out of the Labor Force that Unemployment is plummeting.

The American Sheeple will believe anything.

The real unemployment rate is right around 20 percent in the USA (story) and climbing. The masonry company that has employed a member of my family since the mid 1960's had 350 employees. Now two supervisors are painting the offices. Our biggest competitor also had more than 300 employees, and they closed the doors. People I have known all my life that have NEVER been on unemployment are drawing unemployment and food stamps today.

Clinton, Bush and now Obama have been working to destroy the U.S. Consumer/Tax Base using NAFTA (offshoring of US manufacturing base), Job Outsourcing and a multitude of Foreign Nationals (legal = 1.5 million visas every year + illegal = 20-30 million strong). The idea that the USA allows millions and millions and millions of Illegal Alien Foreign Nationals to come here in the middle of the night through the back door to steal American identities and jobs tells you that the USA is on the way to total destruction.

The US Economy is imploding from a destroyed Consumer/Tax Base and nothing anyone does can stop that now. Watch and see ...

GL,

Terral

GL,

Terral

 

[pinqy]

Twenty-one states reported statistically significant over-the-month
unemployment rate increases in December. Louisiana and Mississippi
experienced the largest of these (+0.8 percentage point each). One
state, South Dakota, saw a statistically significant rate decrease
from November (-0.2 percentage point). The remaining 28 states and
the District of Columbia registered jobless rates that were not
appreciably different from those of a month earlier

Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary

Jan 22 2010, 12:34 pm by Daniel Indiviglio
State Unemployment Data Darkens Jobs Picture

Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released December's state-by-state unemployment data. It isn't pretty. Even though the national rate was unchanged last month, most states saw their unemployment rates worsen. 43 states and the District of Columbia saw their unemployment rates increase from November to December, many significantly. This is a major change-in-direction from November's good news, when 36 states saw their unemployment rates decline.

State Unemployment Data Darkens Jobs Picture - The Atlantic Business Channel

Yes, like I said, the state numbers for January aren't out yet...you're citing December figures. In December the National rate stayed at 10% in a large part due to people leaving the workforce. In January in dropped and we don't know how the states did yet.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Twenty-one states reported statistically significant over-the-month
unemployment rate increases in December. Louisiana and Mississippi
experienced the largest of these (+0.8 percentage point each). One
state, South Dakota, saw a statistically significant rate decrease
from November (-0.2 percentage point). The remaining 28 states and
the District of Columbia registered jobless rates that were not
appreciably different from those of a month earlier

Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary

Jan 22 2010, 12:34 pm by Daniel Indiviglio
State Unemployment Data Darkens Jobs Picture

Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released December's state-by-state unemployment data. It isn't pretty. Even though the national rate was unchanged last month, most states saw their unemployment rates worsen. 43 states and the District of Columbia saw their unemployment rates increase from November to December, many significantly. This is a major change-in-direction from November's good news, when 36 states saw their unemployment rates decline.

State Unemployment Data Darkens Jobs Picture - The Atlantic Business Channel

Yes, like I said, the state numbers for January aren't out yet...you're citing December figures. In December the National rate stayed at 10% in a large part due to people leaving the workforce. In January in dropped and we don't know how the states did yet.

43 States saw their numbers increase yet the national level remained the same? Some one is a bald faced LIAR.

 

[Paulie]

OK, I'm confused here.

Some one said that we lost 22,000 jobs

There were 480,000 new unemployment initial claims.

The unemployment numbers went down?

Why can't I see the math behind this miracle?

It is all in the numbers. They also reported that 49 of the 57 states showed an increase in unemployment. Those 49 states lost the 22,000 jobs and had 480,000 new claims. Now 8 states showed a decrease in unemployment. So they are simply reporting that those 8 states had an increase in employment of 541,000. Rather straightforward math (at least to the liars in DC).

57 states?

 

[SFC Ollie]

OK, I'm confused here.

Some one said that we lost 22,000 jobs

There were 480,000 new unemployment initial claims.

The unemployment numbers went down?

Why can't I see the math behind this miracle?

It is all in the numbers. They also reported that 49 of the 57 states showed an increase in unemployment. Those 49 states lost the 22,000 jobs and had 480,000 new claims. Now 8 states showed a decrease in unemployment. So they are simply reporting that those 8 states had an increase in employment of 541,000. Rather straightforward math (at least to the liars in DC).

57 states?

Yes there are 57 states using Obamathematics .

 

[pinqy]

Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary

Jan 22 2010, 12:34 pm by Daniel Indiviglio
State Unemployment Data Darkens Jobs Picture

Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released December's state-by-state unemployment data. It isn't pretty. Even though the national rate was unchanged last month, most states saw their unemployment rates worsen. 43 states and the District of Columbia saw their unemployment rates increase from November to December, many significantly. This is a major change-in-direction from November's good news, when 36 states saw their unemployment rates decline.

State Unemployment Data Darkens Jobs Picture - The Atlantic Business Channel

Yes, like I said, the state numbers for January aren't out yet...you're citing December figures. In December the National rate stayed at 10% in a large part due to people leaving the workforce. In January in dropped and we don't know how the states did yet.

43 States saw their numbers increase yet the national level remained the same? Some one is a bald faced LIAR.

You've never studied statistics, have you? First, all the numbers are estimates and have margins of error. The individual state numbers are calculated a little bit differently because while the total sample size is fine for the national figures, the parts of that sample from each state are inadequate by themselves so other information (such as state UI claims) is used to refine the numbers. So the individual state numbers and the national number won't quite add up. The statistical bias, the errors, the samples, etc are not quite the same so they won't exactly match. That's how it works and anyone who knows anything about statistics would be aware of that. Plus, I don't remember off the top of my head if Puerto Rico, Guam and/or other non-states are included in which.

 

[eagleseven]

Hmm...both employment went up, as did participation in the labor force. This is a good sign, let us hope it continues.