How can UE drop that dramatically with only 144000 jobs created?

[Charles_Main]

If numbers hurt your head, then what good would an explanation do?

Let the adults work this out, sweetie.

So I Take it you as a big adult and all, can explain how adding less jobs than we need to keep up with Population Growth can cause the Rate to Drop so much?

Please use small words so we can follow your superior Intellect.


You brainless Obamabot.

I already explained it. But I doubt you can follow my superior Intellect.

What you explained is how the numbers have been manipulated to make them look better, You did not explain how this was a real Drop in UE.

lol

Now Explain they large Difference between the 2 surveys.

 

[Liability]

So the BLS massaged the data to bring the numbers down. Is this really that surprising to anyone?

No. It is an October non-surprise.

 

[Wiseacre]

So the BLS massaged the data to bring the numbers down. Is this really that surprising to anyone?

No. It is an October non-surprise.

Anybody with half a brain had to see this coming.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Honest question here.

We had months with double that and it barely budged.

Please explain.

There are TWO different surveys.
The Current Employment Statistics is a survey of Business establishments. It excludes agriculture, the self employed, and unpaid family workers. It counts workers for every job they have. It is based on the Pay Period that contains the 12th of the month.

The CES total non farm payroll employment went from 133,386,000 to 133,500,000 a change of 114,000

The Current Population Survey is a survey of households and includes everyone 16 and older not active duty military and not in prison or other institution. People are counted once, no matter how many jobs they have. It is based on the week that contains the 12th.

The CPS showed Employment go from 142,101,000 to 142,974,000 a change of 873,000
The CPS showed Unemployment go from 12,544,000 to 12,088,000 a change of -456,000

The UE rate is Unemployed/(Employed + Unemployed) = 12,088,000/(142,974,000 + 12,088,000) = 12,088,000/155,063,000 = 7.8%

Yes it is an unusually large discrepency between the two surveys, even accounting for definitional differences.

When ya' think we'll see the revision?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Honest question here.

We had months with double that and it barely budged.

Please explain.

If numbers hurt your head, then what good would an explanation do?

Let the adults work this out, sweetie.

For purposes of clarity...

....you believe they're accurate?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Honest question here.

We had months with double that and it barely budged.

Please explain.

It can not be explained.

I called this a year ago. I said the would play with the numbers leading up to the Election to make it seem like we just slipped under 8%. It's all a trick.

If the Obama folks believed the battleground poll numbers.....

...why would they bother to fudge the unemployment numbers?


Seems that the danger is of folks finding the timing too coincidental....

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're addressing a troll, PChic.

 

[beretta304]

The answer lies in the way the monthly job figures are compiled, which often leads to confusion. The change in payrolls is derived from a survey of business establishments that the Labor Department conducts. The unemployment rate comes from a separate survey of households carried out by the Census Bureau. In theory, the two sets of figures should match up, but all too often they don’t, and this was one of those occasions. The household survey showed the number of people in work shooting up by 873,000, and it was this leap in employment that pushed down the unemployment rate.

Read more Obama, the Job Figures, and the Conspiracy Theorists : The New Yorker

 

[Wiseacre]

The answer lies in the way the monthly job figures are compiled, which often leads to confusion. The change in payrolls is derived from a survey of business establishments that the Labor Department conducts. The unemployment rate comes from a separate survey of households carried out by the Census Bureau. In theory, the two sets of figures should match up, but all too often they don’t, and this was one of those occasions. The household survey showed the number of people in work shooting up by 873,000, and it was this leap in employment that pushed down the unemployment rate.

Read more Obama, the Job Figures, and the Conspiracy Theorists : The New Yorker

873,000? Somebody is flat out lyin'.

 

[PixieStix]

So the BLS massaged the data to bring the numbers down. Is this really that surprising to anyone?

No. It is an October non-surprise.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6_1Pw1xm9U]Surprise Surprise Surprise - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Honest question here.

We had months with double that and it barely budged.

Please explain.

It's not possible.

This is open fraud.

 

[elvis]

Because unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story. It's misleading.

 

[Lovebears65]

Honest question here.

We had months with double that and it barely budged.

Please explain.

because the cook the books to make obama look good.. Hell I really dont know but it doesnt pass the smell test

 

[beretta304]

The answer lies in the way the monthly job figures are compiled, which often leads to confusion. The change in payrolls is derived from a survey of business establishments that the Labor Department conducts. The unemployment rate comes from a separate survey of households carried out by the Census Bureau. In theory, the two sets of figures should match up, but all too often they don’t, and this was one of those occasions. The household survey showed the number of people in work shooting up by 873,000, and it was this leap in employment that pushed down the unemployment rate.

Read more Obama, the Job Figures, and the Conspiracy Theorists : The New Yorker

873,000? Somebody is flat out lyin'.

"Fuzzy" math

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The answer lies in the way the monthly job figures are compiled, which often leads to confusion. The change in payrolls is derived from a survey of business establishments that the Labor Department conducts. The unemployment rate comes from a separate survey of households carried out by the Census Bureau. In theory, the two sets of figures should match up, but all too often they don’t, and this was one of those occasions. The household survey showed the number of people in work shooting up by 873,000, and it was this leap in employment that pushed down the unemployment rate.

Read more Obama, the Job Figures, and the Conspiracy Theorists : The New Yorker

873,000? Somebody is flat out lyin'.

Seriously, the margin of error sided with almost a million additions to the roll call?

And we're suppose to say "oh, this is wonderful!"

 

[beretta304]

More:

Anybody can see there is is a big difference between 873,000 and 114,000. But that doesn’t mean the fix was in. Having covered the U.S. economy for many years, I have never seen any credible evidence of malfeasance or political machinations on the part of the questioners and statisticians who produce the job figures. They occasionally get things wrong, and give a misleading impression of what’s happening in the economy, but that’s almost always a product of coverage problems with their surveys, or faulty statistical adjustments, rather than political bias. Of course, that doesn’t rule out something untoward happening. But in my experience it would be unprecedented.


Read more Obama, the Job Figures, and the Conspiracy Theorists : The New Yorker

 

[B. Kidd]

So the BLS massaged the data to bring the numbers down. Is this really that surprising to anyone?

And the BLS will magically revise the numbers upwards.......................................................................................................
..............AFTER the election.

 

[Care4all]

The ONLY thing that I can think of that sort of makes sense is that there are 10,000 boomers a day, turning 65 years old this year....A DAY!

So, maybe with the economy being in the crapper and fears on whether social Security will be there in the long term, these people have decided to move themselves out of the work force and put themselves in to retirement.

 

[Clementine]

The BLS reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created in September--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to 8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%.

One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July and August jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimate of public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually revised downward by 5,000.

In addition, the BLS reported a large rise in the number of part-time jobs, adding 600,000 jobs to the total--a dramatic increase of 7.5%, not explained by any other economic indicators--and raising questions about whether the government had changed the way it counted part-time workers.

Fact Check: Suspicion Falls on Labor Secretary Solis as She Misleads on Jobs Revisions

I think they count anyone who looks like they may be working, like people mowing their lawn, etc. They didn't claim people are getting paid, just working part time.

They must go by what they think should be happening, which is far apart from reality, but they do creative math to always get the best possible results. And the best they can do is 8.3 % last I heard. Knowing that is the best fake statistic they can manage, you realize how much trouble we're in here.

 

[beretta304]

And finally:

Not that Obama is quite out of the woods when comes to the economy. One of the puzzles about today’s report is that it doesn’t jibe with the recent figures for G.D.P., which have been weak. In the second quarter of the year, growth in G.D.P. was just 1.3 per cent. Most analysts expect the third-quarter figure to come in somewhere between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent. If the slowdown in growth were to continue, the unemployment rate would start to creep back up again at some point. Indeed, some people in the Obama Administration were fearful that this could happen before the election, which would have been disastrous. It didn’t happen this month, but it’s still a possibility. The October jobs report will be released on Friday, November 2nd, just six days before the election.


Read more Obama, the Job Figures, and the Conspiracy Theorists : The New Yorker