More economic good news, unemployment rate drops to 8.6%

[mascale]

Noting a 0.2 % decline in the labor force participation rate, in seasonally adjusted data, as indicative of a trend is actually stupid.

People retire, form new businesses, (Secretary Solis noted that), Occupy Wall Street, and go into winter hibernation--seriously. Where is everyone's sense of American Values?!

That latter is seriously is a part of labor force participation. There is a seasonal, long-term holiday effect in the counting. There are are more than usual, possibly having become engorged from disaster relief employment, 12-14 hours per day. Earnings dipped a bit. Some of these are rural area truckers, aware of snow on the roads, for example. This year they were heavily full of water, in many areas(?). It's a curse, for some people! More stuff than usual had to be transported.

The Household Survey counted a decrease of 595,000 unemployed in November: From 13.987 mil., to 13.303 mil. The Household Survey counted an increase of employment at 278,000: From 140.302 mil. to 140.580 mil.

The trend is toward a quickening recovery: And worldwide disaster relief may be a large part of the explanation. Shovel unready projects finally got underway: Mercifully, Thanks to Great Socialist Havens(?)!

The Ivy League had famously ignored what most of the 140.0 mil. plus are actually doing with their time: Which is called, "Work!" Somehow, anyone might guess--from an incoming Obama Administration especially, understanding "common" sense--that soon the Maynard G. Krebsian economists would be in charge, of Dobie Gillis era fame! (The G. Stands for Walter!). "Work" is not a concept at the liberal Ivy League. As for the Conservative Ivy League, Even George Bush rarely showed up!

The Lubrication Money was sent to the pricey bureaucrats, and to the pricey teachers, instead of to the state and local tax base. Schedule M was put in place, but the Republicans took that away. The payroll tax was made suddenly less regressive in its place. The Republicans stand ready to take that away, conceding that Obama had come up with a plan.

Notice that even more work: Is still not involved in the plan(?!) Money is involved, originating from credit.

People really need to pay attention to things!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!:
(Much Turquoise can now be exchanged--Following Ron Paul kinds of standards!)

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No doubt that the unemployed folks who are no longer counted as unemployed will vote Obama in 2012 due to this good news.

 

[8537]

no, they don't. Data releases are just as often revised in the other direction.

I don't think that really supports the pinqy assertion that BLS figures are flawless....

well, it counterbalances your assertion that the flaws are intentional in order to make the economy look better than it is.

In addition, Pinqy hasn't said the figures are flawless. In fact, if you read what he's written you'll see he's gone to great lengths to explain how, why and when the numbers will change.

Since none of his explanations involve "It's the Dems fault. Libs are liars and Obama sucks", people won't accept them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How? And by whom? The current Comissioner of BLS, the only political appointee in BLS, was appointed by President Bush, and had previously served as Bush's Chief Economist on the White House Council of Economic Advisers. He's the guy with the final word on the numbers. The President doesn't get to see or have any idea what the numbers will be.

And again, what process do you think could be used to adjust the numbers considering the thousands of cells of data? The seasonal adjustment uses a set software program and you can't really change the inputs to get a desired output...it's too complicated.

Appoint by bush doesn't mean he's partisan hell Bush was a liberal disguised as a Republican

He was a republican...just a progressive one

Bush is a very good example of why the progressive agenda does not work.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Noting a 0.2 % decline in the labor force participation rate, in seasonally adjusted data, as indicative of a trend is actually stupid.

People retire, form new businesses, (Secretary Solis noted that), Occupy Wall Street, and go into winter hibernation--seriously. Where is everyone's sense of American Values?!

That latter is seriously is a part of labor force participation. There is a seasonal, long-term holiday effect in the counting. There are are more than usual, possibly having become engorged from disaster relief employment, 12-14 hours per day. Earnings dipped a bit. Some of these are rural area truckers, aware of snow on the roads, for example. This year they were heavily full of water, in many areas(?). It's a curse, for some people! More stuff than usual had to be transported.

The Household Survey counted a decrease of 595,000 unemployed in November: From 13.987 mil., to 13.303 mil. The Household Survey counted an increase of employment at 278,000: From 140.302 mil. to 140.580 mil.

The trend is toward a quickening recovery: And worldwide disaster relief may be a large part of the explanation. Shovel unready projects finally got underway: Mercifully, Thanks to Great Socialist Havens(?)!

The Ivy League had famously ignored what most of the 140.0 mil. plus are actually doing with their time: Which is called, "Work!" Somehow, anyone might guess--from an incoming Obama Administration especially, understanding "common" sense--that soon the Maynard G. Krebsian economists would be in charge, of Dobie Gillis era fame! (The G. Stands for Walter!). "Work" is not a concept at the liberal Ivy League. As for the Conservative Ivy League, Even George Bush rarely showed up!

The Lubrication Money was sent to the pricey bureaucrats, and to the pricey teachers, instead of to the state and local tax base. Schedule M was put in place, but the Republicans took that away. The payroll tax was made suddenly less regressive in its place. The Republicans stand ready to take that away, conceding that Obama had come up with a plan.

Notice that even more work: Is still not involved in the plan(?!) Money is involved, originating from credit.

People really need to pay attention to things!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!:
(Much Turquoise can now be exchanged--Following Ron Paul kinds of standards!)

Lie much?

Oh, and you should cite the hate sites you copy your idiocy from.

I'm sure it's KOS, Thinkprogress, dumbfuck underground, or the like.

 

[pinqy]

The point is that BLS data is routinely manipulated per the guidance of the administration in power.

And your evidence for this is what?

Your claim that the figures would be "too hard" to manipulate is so absurd as to be laughable.

Ok, then explain how it is possible. What must be done to manipulate the numbers?

You acknowledged yourself that this is an estimate, and one that is highly beneficial to the current administration.

and past estimates have not been benefecial to the administration.

Here's the basics. The Universe for the Current Employment Survey (non-farm payroll jobs) is the UI list. Every month, BLS surveys about 440,000 worksites and releases an estimate of total jobs. Every March, BLS looks at the entire List, which takes months, and every January updates the data based on the new benchmark. The re-benchmarking for 2011 looks like it will be an increase of 192,000 (+0.1%) from the estimate. In other words, in March 2011, BLS's estimate was 130,757,000 non farm payroll jobs, but now they've looked at the actual list, the real number looks like 130,949,000 so the March 2011 number will be revised and subsequent months adjusted as well. The average difference is about +-0.3% which is not bad.

Yet there is a LOT of leeway for what data is and is not included.

We know for a fact that the reduction in the workforce without corresponding adjustments for new entrants has painted an unrealistic picture of the employment situation.

What are you talking about? New entrants are included so what lack of adjustments are you talking about?

Do you really think that comparing to the Census bureau makes BLS look better? The census is notorious for manipulation to achieve political goals.

And your evidence for that is....?

Both agencies routinely release numbers to support political agendas.

Evidence?

Due to budget and personel constraints, you can't do a full count of businesses or people every month...you estimate and then adjust the estimates when necessary.

A process replete with assumptions and modifiers that are simple to manipulate.

How? Go ahead and explain.

I love how you and bigrebnc just make assertions out of your asses without even attempting to explain or back them up. Is that what passes for intellectual honesty? No, you'll just say you "know" it's true and call me names for not accepting what you say without evidence.

 

[JDzBrain]

I'm no economist

I am.

POINT PROVEN! I tried to go slow. ;~0

I tell ya what Jethro...uh, pingy. When they revise the numbers, and they will, let's just re-visit this little bit of mathematical masturbation you're engaging in here and discuss how faulty the math I used to get that 8.8% figure is!

This is the same kind of stinkin' thinkin' and fuzzy math that keeps telling us that the is no inflation when any damn fool knows there is!

Just because some self serving ideologues decided they could, for political gain, take things like energy, food and clothing out of the calculation for inflation doesn't mean my dollar ain't worth 6-8 cents less every year. And it doesn't make a DAMN how it's explained...it's STILL a liar's figure!

Cherry picking figures and plugging them into calculations ain't goin' to put real people in real jobs or real food in real bellies. It just puts real delusions in the minds of the real gullible!

 

[pinqy]

I tell ya what Jethro...uh, pingy. When they revise the numbers, and they will,

Only the non-farm payroll numbers get revised. The Labor Force data is not revised.

let's just re-visit this little bit of mathematical masturbation you're engaging in here and discuss how faulty the math I used to get that 8.8% figure is!

Why wait? I used actual numbers and you made guesses, invalid operations, double counting and then asked why it didn't match up with the actual data. So using the actual numbers I gave, or from The Employment Situation make your case.

This is the same kind of stinkin' thinkin' and fuzzy math that keeps telling us that the is no inflation when any damn fool knows there is!

The only fuzzy math was yours.

Just because some self serving ideologues decided they could, for political gain, take things like energy, food and clothing out of the calculation for inflation doesn't mean my dollar ain't worth 6-8 cents less every year. And it doesn't make a DAMN how it's explained...it's STILL a liar's figure!

Except food, energy and clothing ARE included in the CPI! Especially in the figure used for Social Security adjustments. Fincancial types, including the Fed, do use the "core index" which excludes food and energy but the headline number, the Official numbers, include food, energy, and nobody excludes clothing.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you make it clear you don't know what youre talking about?

And why on Earth would you expect a National Average of ALL items (including goods and services you don't purchase) would match your individual experience for your area? Of course you're not going to see the same thing the National numbers say.

 

[8537]

I'm no economist

I am.

POINT PROVEN! I tried to go slow. ;~0

I tell ya what Jethro...uh, pingy. When they revise the numbers, and they will, let's just re-visit this little bit of mathematical masturbation you're engaging in here and discuss how faulty the math I used to get that 8.8% figure is!

This is the same kind of stinkin' thinkin' and fuzzy math that keeps telling us that the is no inflation when any damn fool knows there is!

Just because some self serving ideologues decided they could, for political gain, take things like energy, food and clothing out of the calculation for inflation doesn't mean my dollar ain't worth 6-8 cents less every year. And it doesn't make a DAMN how it's explained...it's STILL a liar's figure!

Cherry picking figures and plugging them into calculations ain't goin' to put real people in real jobs or real food in real bellies. It just puts real delusions in the minds of the real gullible!

A) this post is a classic case of "education bad!" conservatarian thinking.

B) Food, energy and clothing are all part of the CPI.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The point is that BLS data is routinely manipulated per the guidance of the administration in power.

And your evidence for this is what?

Your claim that the figures would be "too hard" to manipulate is so absurd as to be laughable.

Ok, then explain how it is possible. What must be done to manipulate the numbers?

and past estimates have not been benefecial to the administration.

What are you talking about? New entrants are included so what lack of adjustments are you talking about?



And your evidence for that is....?

Evidence?

Due to budget and personel constraints, you can't do a full count of businesses or people every month...you estimate and then adjust the estimates when necessary.

A process replete with assumptions and modifiers that are simple to manipulate.

How? Go ahead and explain.

I love how you and bigrebnc just make assertions out of your asses without even attempting to explain or back them up. Is that what passes for intellectual honesty? No, you'll just say you "know" it's true and call me names for not accepting what you say without evidence.

You claim to be an economist but yet you don't know that the government cooks the books? The government manipulates any information to keep the people are ease. They can't stand when there are unrest in a large portion of the country if the government ever told the truth, and it would also show how deceptive it has been for the past 50 years.

 

[8537]

The point is that BLS data is routinely manipulated per the guidance of the administration in power.

And your evidence for this is what?

Ok, then explain how it is possible. What must be done to manipulate the numbers?

and past estimates have not been benefecial to the administration.

What are you talking about? New entrants are included so what lack of adjustments are you talking about?



And your evidence for that is....?

Evidence?

A process replete with assumptions and modifiers that are simple to manipulate.

How? Go ahead and explain.

I love how you and bigrebnc just make assertions out of your asses without even attempting to explain or back them up. Is that what passes for intellectual honesty? No, you'll just say you "know" it's true and call me names for not accepting what you say without evidence.

You claim to be an economist but yet you don't know that the government cooks the books? The government manipulates any information to keep the people are ease. They can't stand when there are unrest in a large portion of the country if the government ever told the truth, and it would also show how deceptive it has been for the past 50 years.

Do you have any evidence that the government "cooks the books" on economic data? Not a gut feeling or a suspicion based on your own bias, but actual evidence?

 

[pinqy]

You claim to be an economist but yet you don't know that the government cooks the books?

Nope...don't know it (because I know the people that calculate the data, I know how the data is calculated etc). So explain how the economic data is manipulated, and by whom and with supporting evidence.

This should be interesting since you STILL can't even admit that you were wrong about claiming the UE rate comes from a count of UI benefits. You've shown zero knowledge about methodology yet you think you can claim its manipulated. And you neg repped ME for dishonesty???? You've got balls.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And your evidence for this is what?

Ok, then explain how it is possible. What must be done to manipulate the numbers?

and past estimates have not been benefecial to the administration.

What are you talking about? New entrants are included so what lack of adjustments are you talking about?



And your evidence for that is....?

Evidence?


How? Go ahead and explain.

I love how you and bigrebnc just make assertions out of your asses without even attempting to explain or back them up. Is that what passes for intellectual honesty? No, you'll just say you "know" it's true and call me names for not accepting what you say without evidence.

You claim to be an economist but yet you don't know that the government cooks the books? The government manipulates any information to keep the people are ease. They can't stand when there are unrest in a large portion of the country if the government ever told the truth, and it would also show how deceptive it has been for the past 50 years.

Do you have any evidence that the government "cooks the books" on economic data? Not a gut feeling or a suspicion based on your own bias, but actual evidence?

When the numbers do not add up to reality how else do you explain it? When they no longer count people who are no longer receiving unemployment checks as unemployed you do the math.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You claim to be an economist but yet you don't know that the government cooks the books?

Nope...don't know it (because I know the people that calculate the data, I know how the data is calculated etc). So explain how the economic data is manipulated, and by whom and with supporting evidence.

This should be interesting since you STILL can't even admit that you were wrong about claiming the UE rate comes from a count of UI benefits. You've shown zero knowledge about methodology yet you think you can claim its manipulated. And you neg repped ME for dishonesty???? You've got balls.

claiming the UE rate comes from a count of UI benefits.

Let's see that actual post so I know how to respond or shut the fuck up " economist"

 

[Mr. Jones]

Unemployment rate falls to 8.6% in November


(AP) Washington (AP) —The unemployment rate fell last month to its lowest level in more than two and a half years, as employers stepped up hiring in response to the slowly improving economy.

The Labor Department says the unemployment rate dropped sharply to 8.6% last month, from 9% in October. The rate hasn't been that low since March 2009, during the depths of the recession.
Employers added 120,000 jobs last month. And the previous two months were revised up to show that 72,000 more jobs added — the fourth straight month the government revised prior months higher.
Still, one reason the unemployment rate fell so much was because roughly 315,000 people gave up looking for work and were no longer counted as unemployed.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Now if we can continue this awesome trend past the christmas hiring season I will be estatic!

You mean the trend that people stop looking for work because there aren't any jobs? God you people are gullible, and naive. Millions of jobs lost no matter what party is in office, the out sourcing continues.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And your evidence for this is what?

The after the fact adjustments. Were you not paying attention.

Ok, then explain how it is possible. What must be done to manipulate the numbers?

Don't be absurd.

Select *
from DBO.nonfarm cross join DBO.newjob
where nonfarm.fdate>'01/01/2011' and nonfarm.fdate,'12/31/2011' and newjob.state=inlist('CA','NV','AZ','GA','FL')
order by newjob.state

There are at least 40 ways to alter the return with one or two characters.

and past estimates have not been benefecial to the administration.

Why do you say that?

The reported 2.2% GDP reported was certainly more beneficial to Obama than the factual 1.6%

What are you talking about? New entrants are included so what lack of adjustments are you talking about?

Are they?

{In November, the unemployment rate declined by 0.4 percentage point to 8.6 percent. From April through October, the rate held in a narrow range from 9.0 to 9.2 percent. The number of unemployed persons, at 13.3 million, was down by 594,000 in November. The labor force, which is the sum of the unemployed and employed, was down by a little more than half that amount. (See table A-1.)}

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Show me where new entrants into the labor market are acknowledged in the above calculation?

And your evidence for that is....?

Evidence?

Seriously?

{"With the nomination of Robert Groves, President Obama has made clear that he intends to employ the political manipulation of census data for partisan gain," North Carolina Congressman Patrick McHenry cautioned. Other lawmakers called Groves an "incredibly troubling selection" who must be watched for "statistical sleight of hand."

Read more: Robert M. Groves: Obama's Pick for Census Chief - TIME
}

The manipulation of census data for the apportionment of congressional seats and allocation of federal money is widely acknowledged.

How? Go ahead and explain.

GIGO

I love how you and bigrebnc just make assertions out of your asses without even attempting to explain or back them up.

Failure on your part to grasp what you are provided does not equate to a failure on my part to provide the information.

Nothing makes me chuckle quite like a statistician demanding that statistics cannot possibly manipulated.

Is that what passes for intellectual honesty? No, you'll just say you "know" it's true and call me names for not accepting what you say without evidence.

I've given you a plethora of evidence.

 

[pinqy]

claiming the UE rate comes from a count of UI benefits.

Let's see that actual post so I know how to respond or shut the fuck up " economist"

Multiple below. Including your very last post.

You claim to be an economist but yet you don't know that the government cooks the books? The government manipulates any information to keep the people are ease. They can't stand when there are unrest in a large portion of the country if the government ever told the truth, and it would also show how deceptive it has been for the past 50 years.

Do you have any evidence that the government "cooks the books" on economic data? Not a gut feeling or a suspicion based on your own bias, but actual evidence?

When the numbers do not add up to reality how else do you explain it? When they no longer count people who are no longer receiving unemployment checks as unemployed you do the math.

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.

350k americans fell off of the unemployment rolls. Meaning even though they have not found a job--they are no longer counted as unemployed.

the unemployment rate has never been based on unemployment benefits. All people not working but looking for work are classified as unemployed!!!!!!!
that's been mentioned more than once in this thread alone!

Thats is the craziest thing I have ever heard of and if asnyone believes that shit they would vote for obama even if a gun was point at their head and they were told not to vote for him
The unemployment rate has never been used to base the unemployment numbers. Dude do you really believe that shit?

And then you refuse to even check:

Thats is the craziest thing I have ever heard of and if asnyone believes that shit they would vote for obama even if a gun was point at their head and they were told not to vote for him
The unemployment rate has never been used to base the unemployment numbers. Dude do you really believe that shit?

It never has been, that's a fact. Why do you think otherwise? Do some simple fucking research...it's not that hard. I dare you...try and prove me wrong. You won't, though...if you look at all for the facts, which I doubt, and then you quickly find the UE rate comes from a monthly household survey, you'll just stay silent until next month when you talk out of your ass again.

Here, I'll help you: Current Population Survey (CPS) Main Page

Stop right there you are using a government link and it has already been suggested that the government cook the numbers. They lie so fuck the government books and look at reality look around you how many people do you know that is unemployed and looking for a job?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

claiming the UE rate comes from a count of UI benefits.

Let's see that actual post so I know how to respond or shut the fuck up " economist"

Multiple below. Including your very last post.







And then you refuse to even check:

It never has been, that's a fact. Why do you think otherwise? Do some simple fucking research...it's not that hard. I dare you...try and prove me wrong. You won't, though...if you look at all for the facts, which I doubt, and then you quickly find the UE rate comes from a monthly household survey, you'll just stay silent until next month when you talk out of your ass again.

Here, I'll help you: Current Population Survey (CPS) Main Page

Stop right there you are using a government link and it has already been suggested that the government cook the numbers. They lie so fuck the government books and look at reality look around you how many people do you know that is unemployed and looking for a job?

And then you refuse to even check:

You are absolutely correct I am not going to check because all you will find is big lying government and those cooked numbers. Here's how I verify those numbers I look in the want ads and look to see how many jobs are posted I go online to look and see how many hiring agencies have jobs I then read other sources like how many people are receiving government help. I then talk with people who are looking for jobs nation wide. My findings and the government numbers do not add up not even close.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Only the non-farm payroll numbers get revised. The Labor Force data is not revised.

Both will be revised. The labor force will be adjusted up and the payroll numbers down.

Why wait? I used actual numbers and you made guesses, invalid operations, double counting and then asked why it didn't match up with the actual data. So using the actual numbers I gave, or from The Employment Situation make your case.

Can you point out the entry for the 370,000 new labor pool entrants?

The only fuzzy math was yours.

Yet your claim is that calculations are so complex that manipulation is impossible - not exactly clear then.

Except food, energy and clothing ARE included in the CPI! Especially in the figure used for Social Security adjustments. Fincancial types, including the Fed, do use the "core index" which excludes food and energy but the headline number, the Official numbers, include food, energy, and nobody excludes clothing.

This seems to be mixing apples and oranges. CPI for the calculation of inflation is highly manipulated, but that isn't the current issue.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you make it clear you don't know what youre talking about?

And why on Earth would you expect a National Average of ALL items (including goods and services you don't purchase) would match your individual experience for your area? Of course you're not going to see the same thing the National numbers say.

CPI will never reflect the impact on consumers as certain big ticket items such as computers and automobiles have seen such a dramatic deflation that the increase in other consumer costs has been obscured. iPods dropping in price won't help those who need to buy a new stove afford the purchase.

But I will grant you this, the purchasing power per hour of labor worked is increasing steadily, not decreasing.

 

[8537]

You claim to be an economist but yet you don't know that the government cooks the books? The government manipulates any information to keep the people are ease. They can't stand when there are unrest in a large portion of the country if the government ever told the truth, and it would also show how deceptive it has been for the past 50 years.

Do you have any evidence that the government "cooks the books" on economic data? Not a gut feeling or a suspicion based on your own bias, but actual evidence?

When the numbers do not add up to reality how else do you explain it?

Your personal observations are slightly less statistically significant than a 6,000 person survey performed monthly over the course of 50 years. The reason we have statistical data is to root out variations in how individuals perceive reality.

When they no longer count people who are no longer receiving unemployment checks as unemployed you do the math.

They DO count people who are no longer receiving unemployment checks. This has been explained numerous times. It's almost like you don't want to know the truth because it doesn't fit your own bias.