More economic good news, unemployment rate drops to 8.6%

[pinqy]

Read the article man.........the numbers include hiring by retailers and restaurants (which is holiday hiring)

And they are seasonally adjusted.

They include retail hiring.......retail is the biggest seasonal job market....how can you justify saying htey are seasonally adjusted when the largest seasonal job market was included in the numbers?

Because the unadjusted change for retail was +423,500, seasonal adjustment dropped it down to +49,800

 

[8537]

Read the article man.........the numbers include hiring by retailers and restaurants (which is holiday hiring)

And they are seasonally adjusted.

They include retail hiring.......retail is the biggest seasonal job market....how can you justify saying htey are seasonally adjusted when the largest seasonal job market was included in the numbers?

I can justify it because you are reading seasonally adjusted figures. Hence the title of the data set: Establishment survey - Seasonally Adjusted.

 

[naturegirl]

And they are seasonally adjusted.

They include retail hiring.......retail is the biggest seasonal job market....how can you justify saying htey are seasonally adjusted when the largest seasonal job market was included in the numbers?

I can justify it because you are reading seasonally adjusted figures. Hence the title of the data set: Establishment survey - Seasonally Adjusted.

Wonder what will happen when the "real" numbers are released and the seasonal jobs go away. Let's see what February brings.

 

[8537]

So 14 pages of pure drivel, part time seasonal help is good. Well......until the holidays are over. Retail and restaurants hire extra folks this time of year, then lay them off. Problem is they won't work long enough to be eligible or UE benefits when they get laid off.

Numbers can be manipulated to make something look better than it is, like the Clinton surplus. That extension to 99 weeks worked out to be just about the right timing for the Campaigner-in-Chief. When their 99 weeks are up and they still don't have a job, UE numbers will continue to fall. Yes, he's a smart man, he certainly knows how to manipulate those beneath him a/k/a the American public.

THis post is completely wrong on all fronts. First, the figures are seasonally adjusted. Second, the number of people collecting UE is not a factor in calculating the Unemployment rate.

 

[pinqy]

I don't even know why the fuck I'm being attacked...

Because you're saying stupid things.

Since you don't seem to know even the basics about the GDP (economic law it can't go down???), any claims you make about it seem odd.

And your evidence is?

the unemployment formula is flawed

You didn't even know what the forumla was until it was explained to you here...and then in support of your false claims you cite an article that completely refutes you.

You don't even seem to know the definition of Macroeconomics.

You do realize there is only one right way???

One right way for what? You have shown and displayed absolutely no knowledge of economics in this thread, including the economic school you claim to support.

 

[8537]

no, I needed to ask some questions first, sorry. so, it would take approx. 8-10 years ( with no boom and mild or bad recession as in the normal cyclical bus/economic swings) to get to 5%. Thats , well ridiculous.

You rate the report as a 5. Ok. well now you know why there is so much acrimony over the reports like this. first its counter intuitive as it is expressed, we know people have dropped out of the work force, the LPR is lower etc etc. yet a jobs report that barely clears a barrier for new entrant growth on top of the huge mass of folks not even counted, and the number goes down and some folks are irate, they feel like they are being played.

I rate any report above 200k and below 400k right now as a 3. Its been over 2 years.

So, after all that rambling you think this jobs report is a 1 or 2 on a scale of 1 to 10? You must have felt the jobs reports for the first three and last one year of the Bush administration were all 1's. Right?

amiright?

Somehow I'm sure I'm not right.

you could have asked me before.

How? It took you several posts to finally make your point - and when you did so, it was the first question I asked.

Its all relative; in an environment with 6% unemployment, with a million people out of work, 175k jobs isn't so bad, I would rate that as perhaps a 6,

Huh? THat would be an indication of a deteriorating job market. WHy would that be a 6?

in an environment with 7% unemployment, 3 million people out of work and 200k jobs I would rate that as a 5....see how that works?

Well, I see what you're trying to do. It's completely backwards, but I understand it.

 

[8537]

I'd like one of Obama's supporters to explain to me why the decision on this project has been pushed back a year from now...a date which just happens to be after the 2012 elections. Why the delay since creating "jobs" are supposedly this President's number one priority?

Because it's a complex issue with a wide range of intended and unintended consequences.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So 14 pages of pure drivel, part time seasonal help is good. Well......until the holidays are over. Retail and restaurants hire extra folks this time of year, then lay them off. Problem is they won't work long enough to be eligible or UE benefits when they get laid off.

Numbers can be manipulated to make something look better than it is, like the Clinton surplus. That extension to 99 weeks worked out to be just about the right timing for the Campaigner-in-Chief. When their 99 weeks are up and they still don't have a job, UE numbers will continue to fall. Yes, he's a smart man, he certainly knows how to manipulate those beneath him a/k/a the American public.

THis post is completely wrong on all fronts. First, the figures are seasonally adjusted. Second, the number of people collecting UE is not a factor in calculating the Unemployment rate.

Second, the number of people collecting UE is not a factor in calculating the Unemployment rate

I had to pause at this comment. Are you for real? people getting unemployment do not play a factor in the unemployment numbers? I'm speechless.

 

[8537]

They include retail hiring.......retail is the biggest seasonal job market....how can you justify saying htey are seasonally adjusted when the largest seasonal job market was included in the numbers?

I can justify it because you are reading seasonally adjusted figures. Hence the title of the data set: Establishment survey - Seasonally Adjusted.

Wonder what will happen when the "real" numbers are released and the seasonal jobs go away. Let's see what February brings.

The "real" numbers have been released - in fact, they've been quoted in this very thread.

And unlike some of the dumbfucks posting here, the BLS has figured out how to adjust for the January/ February layoffs. When they start doing so, I have no doubt that cons will accuse them of lying about the numbers and hiding layoffs.

 

[8537]

So 14 pages of pure drivel, part time seasonal help is good. Well......until the holidays are over. Retail and restaurants hire extra folks this time of year, then lay them off. Problem is they won't work long enough to be eligible or UE benefits when they get laid off.

Numbers can be manipulated to make something look better than it is, like the Clinton surplus. That extension to 99 weeks worked out to be just about the right timing for the Campaigner-in-Chief. When their 99 weeks are up and they still don't have a job, UE numbers will continue to fall. Yes, he's a smart man, he certainly knows how to manipulate those beneath him a/k/a the American public.

THis post is completely wrong on all fronts. First, the figures are seasonally adjusted. Second, the number of people collecting UE is not a factor in calculating the Unemployment rate.

Second, the number of people collecting UE is not a factor in calculating the Unemployment rate

I had to pause at this comment. Are you for real? people getting unemployment do not play a factor in the unemployment numbers? I'm speechless.

No, that's not what I said. It would be easier to converse if you actually read my posts. I said that the number of people collecting UE is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate.

Ya know why? Because the number of people collecting UE is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

And they are seasonally adjusted.

They include retail hiring.......retail is the biggest seasonal job market....how can you justify saying htey are seasonally adjusted when the largest seasonal job market was included in the numbers?

Because the unadjusted change for retail was +423,500, seasonal adjustment dropped it down to +49,800

Thanks...where did you see those numbers? Did i overlook them when i skimmed through the BLS report?

Point me in the right direction....i trust but would like to verify

 

[The T]

So 14 pages of pure drivel, part time seasonal help is good. Well......until the holidays are over. Retail and restaurants hire extra folks this time of year, then lay them off. Problem is they won't work long enough to be eligible or UE benefits when they get laid off.

Numbers can be manipulated to make something look better than it is, like the Clinton surplus. That extension to 99 weeks worked out to be just about the right timing for the Campaigner-in-Chief. When their 99 weeks are up and they still don't have a job, UE numbers will continue to fall. Yes, he's a smart man, he certainly knows how to manipulate those beneath him a/k/a the American public.

THis post is completely wrong on all fronts. First, the figures are seasonally adjusted. Second, the number of people collecting UE is not a factor in calculating the Unemployment rate.

Second, the number of people collecting UE is not a factor in calculating the Unemployment rate

I had to pause at this comment. Are you for real? people getting unemployment do not play a factor in the unemployment numbers? I'm speechless.

Only ignored and fed to the general public to make the regime look good.

 

[pinqy]

They include retail hiring.......retail is the biggest seasonal job market....how can you justify saying htey are seasonally adjusted when the largest seasonal job market was included in the numbers?

Because the unadjusted change for retail was +423,500, seasonal adjustment dropped it down to +49,800

Thanks...where did you see those numbers? Did i overlook them when i skimmed through the BLS report?

Point me in the right direction....i trust but would like to verify

Of course...always check the sources:

Table B1 of the Employment Situation Scroll down to "Retail Trade" and look at the Oct-Nov difference for the not seasonally adjusted numbers (the seasonally adjusted difference is already calculated)

 

[pinqy]

So 14 pages of pure drivel, part time seasonal help is good. Well......until the holidays are over. Retail and restaurants hire extra folks this time of year, then lay them off. Problem is they won't work long enough to be eligible or UE benefits when they get laid off.

Numbers can be manipulated to make something look better than it is, like the Clinton surplus. That extension to 99 weeks worked out to be just about the right timing for the Campaigner-in-Chief. When their 99 weeks are up and they still don't have a job, UE numbers will continue to fall. Yes, he's a smart man, he certainly knows how to manipulate those beneath him a/k/a the American public.

THis post is completely wrong on all fronts. First, the figures are seasonally adjusted. Second, the number of people collecting UE is not a factor in calculating the Unemployment rate.

Second, the number of people collecting UE is not a factor in calculating the Unemployment rate

I had to pause at this comment. Are you for real? people getting unemployment do not play a factor in the unemployment numbers? I'm speechless.

Why speechless? A lot of people are unemployed but not collecting benefits. If you counted only people receiving benefits, that would be crappy numbers. So receipt of UI benefits isn't even a queston on the survey.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'd like one of Obama's supporters to explain to me why the decision on this project has been pushed back a year from now...a date which just happens to be after the 2012 elections. Why the delay since creating "jobs" are supposedly this President's number one priority?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this. If our President is "really" interested in creating jobs for Americans rather than figuring out some way to keep his own...then why has this been postponed for over a year?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd like one of Obama's supporters to explain to me why the decision on this project has been pushed back a year from now...a date which just happens to be after the 2012 elections. Why the delay since creating "jobs" are supposedly this President's number one priority?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this. If our President is "really" interested in creating jobs for Americans rather than figuring out some way to keep his own...then why has this been postponed for over a year?

Your President is the most unAmerican, anti-American to ever occupy the Oval Office

How about all those nuclear plants that he fast tracked?

 

[GHook93]

Math fail.

where did that number of 1 hiure to 3 drop come from?

Not being sarcastic...just curious as to who made that number up?

120,000 jobs created last month while during the same period 315,000 dropped out of the labor force. Not quite 1:3, but close enough for government work

And 70% of those jobs are in the low wage retail and restaurant/bar industry. Many are temporary for the holidays!

 

[Zander]

The UE3 dropped to 8.6%. Woo hoo!! Ass licking Obamites go into orgasmic spasms of joy. Obama runs out and calls it a "positive" sign. Chris Matthews squirts in his pants and Joy Behar shits herself!! It's a joyous day!! Woo Hoo!!! Threads "thanking" Obama start appearing on message boards across the country.

Reality: The UE3 dropped because of a shrinking workforce, not because the economy is creating new jobs. Simple math folks. If the workforce participation rate was the same as January 2009, the UE3 would be at 11%. The problem has become worse, not better. A shrinking workforce means a shrinking GDP and more pain for the middle class. It also means less revenue for the government, increasing our debt. Less income will go to Social Security and Medicare- increasing the burden on our economy. When you dig into the numbers and think this through, you realize that this is horrible news.

Why do so many Progressives lack the ability to think things through? Here are more "progressive" solutions to ponder.....

If Obama can shrink the work force by a few million more- the unemployment problem is solved!!
If we raise the DUI limit we can solve the drunk driving problem!!
If we lower the standards for a passing grade at school, we can solve the education problem!!!

 

[8537]

where did that number of 1 hiure to 3 drop come from?

Not being sarcastic...just curious as to who made that number up?

120,000 jobs created last month while during the same period 315,000 dropped out of the labor force. Not quite 1:3, but close enough for government work

And 70% of those jobs are in the low wage retail and restaurant/bar industry. Many are temporary for the holidays!

Yet another of dozens in this thread that don't understand seasonal adjustments. It's explained numerous times right in this thread - keep reading.

 

[8537]

a shrinking workforce means a shrinking gdp and more pain for the middle class.

p-r-o-d-u-c-t-i-v-i-t-y