Romney and GOP in Panic After Unemployment drops to 7.8%

[DiamondDave]

There are 10,000 boomers turning 65 every day, many of them are retiring.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2011/ssi_asr11.pdf

Table 4.... There is not a huge jump in the rate of retirement compared to other times since 1977 (SS recipients)... 900K during Bush's 8 years, 600K during this Obama time

People did not just start retiring under Obamalama

You do know that your link is for SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME, not Social Security, don't you?!!!

Try this link for SS awards:

Social Security award data

My bad on that... so many charts on the stats...

At a quick glance.... numbers are higher but again not out of line with population increases and they have fluctuated all along in other decades and times as well.. I.E. 228K last month, 228K Jan 2000, etc

Jan (when most retirements happen), yes high this year but not out of line with 2005, 2003, 2002, 2000.. and actually less people retired in 2011 than 2010 (yet pop increase) and the WP rate DROPS still

Sorry... this theory does not fly

 

[Foxfyre]

Coincidences happen. A .3 drop all in one month regarding an issue key to Obama's reelection after a poor debate performance after 40 odd months of being above 8% ... why would anyone pause even for a second. Especially when this administration has been so transparent and all.

LOL. Yep. And they certainly didn't fudge any facts re the recent attack at our Lybian consulate and they tell the absolute truth about everything else, yes? So of course they are trustworthy on the unemployment numbers just as the early voters are going to the polls. Just ignore the math.

(They'll have unemployment down to 2% and 500 million Americans working by election day. )

 

[DiamondDave]

Of course people didn't start under Obama. Who is Obamalama? Using names like that makes people look like fools.

Boomers just started hitting their retirement age in the last few years which will continue to accelerate the number of retirees in the next 20 years.

Statistics do not support your conclusion... the rates of 65+ are not out of line with the population increase.... matter of fact, they are in line with the 90's

Look at Ed's link. There is about a 20% jump from just 4 years ago when looking at Sept 2008 compared to Sept 2012 amongst retired workers.

Just broke stats down compared to WP rate and pop increase, and the theory does not fly... sorry

 

[Stephanie]

Coincidences happen. A .3 drop all in one month regarding an issue key to Obama's reelection after a poor debate performance after 40 odd months of being above 8% ... why would anyone pause even for a second. Especially when this administration has been so transparent and all.

then we wouldn't get threads with titles like this one
don't you know we are ALL IN A PANIC over something

 

[beretta304]

Coincidences happen. A .3 drop all in one month regarding an issue key to Obama's reelection after a poor debate performance after 40 odd months of being above 8% ... why would anyone pause even for a second. Especially when this administration has been so transparent and all.

LOL. Yep. And they certainly didn't fudge any facts re the recent attack at our Lybian consulate and tell the absolute truth about everything else, yes? Just ignore the math.

That too! Heck, let's just be lemmings and blindly believe everything this administration tells us. With their track record, one would have to be insane to question them.

 

[AceRothstein]

Statistics do not support your conclusion... the rates of 65+ are not out of line with the population increase.... matter of fact, they are in line with the 90's

Look at Ed's link. There is about a 20% jump from just 4 years ago when looking at Sept 2008 compared to Sept 2012 amongst retired workers.

Just broke stats down compared to WP rate and pop increase, and the theory does not fly... sorry

So the population has increased 20% over the last 4 years?

 

[beretta304]

Coincidences happen. A .3 drop all in one month regarding an issue key to Obama's reelection after a poor debate performance after 40 odd months of being above 8% ... why would anyone pause even for a second. Especially when this administration has been so transparent and all.

then we wouldn't get threads with titles like this one
don't you know we are ALL IN A PANIC over something

Heck, I don't feel the least bit in a panic. In fact, I feel pretty good. Romney has some momentum and Obama is playing defense and likely will the rest of the election. The House will in all likelihood stay Republican, maybe even the Senate will change hands. I say, pile it on.

He certainly would if the roles were reversed. Oh wait....the roles have been reversed until Romney exposed the lazy SOB for the uninformed stooge that he is.

 

[Vast LWC]

And all the people in prison say they didn't do it.

None of these people are political appointees, and most of them have worked through multiple administrations.

With no motivation to "cook the books", as they have no apparent loyalty, how would you imagine that a conspiracy of this magnitude would not be leaked immediately?

 

[kaz]

The only ones I see panicking are the left..

Like this news is going to change people minds that FINALLY after FOUR years under Obama unemployment dropped BELOW 8 FRIGGEN %

And don't look now, but it is the Holiday hiring season for PART time jobs

Which is why the numbers are always seasonally adjusted.

And of course government would only ever adjust them for truth and accuracy...

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

***FROM THE CWN NEWS DESK***


1. *Fraudulent*.
2. End of Story,.... ... .... ...
3. Consider the source.

 

[beretta304]

And all the people in prison say they didn't do it.

None of these people are political appointees, and most of them have worked through multiple administrations.

With no motivation to "cook the books", as they have no apparent loyalty, how would you imagine that a conspiracy of this magnitude would not be leaked immediately?

Who checks, the "checker" for accuracy after the computer does it's check? If they want to fudge it... there's always a way. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

Like a car that they say can't be stolen, the thief always finds away around the safeguards.

 

[Vast LWC]

So the population has increased 20% over the last 4 years?

It has increased 9% over the 10 years from 2000 to 2010.

Which would indicate about a 3.6% increase over 4 years.

Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[edthecynic]

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2011/ssi_asr11.pdf

Table 4.... There is not a huge jump in the rate of retirement compared to other times since 1977 (SS recipients)... 900K during Bush's 8 years, 600K during this Obama time

People did not just start retiring under Obamalama

You do know that your link is for SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME, not Social Security, don't you?!!!

Try this link for SS awards:

Social Security award data

My bad on that... so many charts on the stats...

At a quick glance.... numbers are higher but again not out of line with population increases and they have fluctuated all along in other decades and times as well.. I.E. 228K last month, 228K Jan 2000, etc

Jan (when most retirements happen), yes high this year but not out of line with 2005, 2003, 2002, 2000.. and actually less people retired in 2011 than 2010 (yet pop increase) and the WP rate DROPS still

Sorry... this theory does not fly

You have 600,000 more workers retiring each year now than in 2007, the last year before the Boomers were old enough to start retiring. That's a 30% increase. You also have an aging workforce whose bodies are breaking down and becoming disabled. You have 200,000 more disabled now than in 2007, so that is an average of more 800,000 Boomers potentially leaving the workforce now than in 2007. You had a combined 3,623,070 retiree and disabled awards in 2011.

 

[Vast LWC]

Who checks, the "checker" for accuracy after the computer does it's check? If they want to fudge it... there's always a way. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

Like a car that they say can't be stolen, the thief always finds away around the safeguards.

The point being they wouldn't "want to fudge it" because they have no motivation, as the administration does not appoint them.

 

[beretta304]

You do know that your link is for SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME, not Social Security, don't you?!!!

Try this link for SS awards:

Social Security award data

My bad on that... so many charts on the stats...

At a quick glance.... numbers are higher but again not out of line with population increases and they have fluctuated all along in other decades and times as well.. I.E. 228K last month, 228K Jan 2000, etc

Jan (when most retirements happen), yes high this year but not out of line with 2005, 2003, 2002, 2000.. and actually less people retired in 2011 than 2010 (yet pop increase) and the WP rate DROPS still

Sorry... this theory does not fly

You have 600,000 more workers retiring each year now than in 2007, the last year before the Boomers were old enough to start retiring. That's a 30% increase. You also have an aging workforce whose bodies are breaking down and becoming disabled. You have 200,000 more disabled now than in 2007, so that is an average of more 800,000 Boomers potentially leaving the workforce now than in 2007. You had a combined 3,623,070 retiree and disabled awards in 2011.

Eddie here wasted everyone's time with this same debate last month.

 

[kaz]

Who checks, the "checker" for accuracy after the computer does it's check? If they want to fudge it... there's always a way. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

Like a car that they say can't be stolen, the thief always finds away around the safeguards.

The point being they wouldn't "want to fudge it" because they have no motivation, as the administration does not appoint them.

Right, career bureaucrats have no incentive to fudge numbers that would help grow their ranks. You're a stone cold logician...

 

[edthecynic]

My bad on that... so many charts on the stats...

At a quick glance.... numbers are higher but again not out of line with population increases and they have fluctuated all along in other decades and times as well.. I.E. 228K last month, 228K Jan 2000, etc

Jan (when most retirements happen), yes high this year but not out of line with 2005, 2003, 2002, 2000.. and actually less people retired in 2011 than 2010 (yet pop increase) and the WP rate DROPS still

Sorry... this theory does not fly

You have 600,000 more workers retiring each year now than in 2007, the last year before the Boomers were old enough to start retiring. That's a 30% increase. You also have an aging workforce whose bodies are breaking down and becoming disabled. You have 200,000 more disabled now than in 2007, so that is an average of more 800,000 Boomers potentially leaving the workforce now than in 2007. You had a combined 3,623,070 retiree and disabled awards in 2011.

Eddie here wasted everyone's time with this same debate last month.

That's only because the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood wastes everyone's time with their "BLS's numbers are cooked" bullshit every month the UE number goes down.

 

[Listening]

Ah....I am in a panic.

You bet.

I'm going home to watch Romney skewer Obama....again.

I'm in such a panic.

 

[beretta304]

You have 600,000 more workers retiring each year now than in 2007, the last year before the Boomers were old enough to start retiring. That's a 30% increase. You also have an aging workforce whose bodies are breaking down and becoming disabled. You have 200,000 more disabled now than in 2007, so that is an average of more 800,000 Boomers potentially leaving the workforce now than in 2007. You had a combined 3,623,070 retiree and disabled awards in 2011.

Eddie here wasted everyone's time with this same debate last month.

That's only because the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood wastes everyone's time with their "BLS's numbers are cooked" bullshit every month the UE number goes down.

Yeah, yeah, yeah and last month after you were bombarded with proof that you were wrong you melted away from the thread.

 

[Stephanie]

Links and video at site

SNIP:
Scarborough: Something’s awfully odd about this job report
posted at 10:41 am on October 5, 2012 by Ed Morrissey


Yes, there is — but it may not be what people think it is, however. Joe Scarborough and Willie Geist both express skepticism over the “major tickdown to 7.8 percent” in the unemployment rate from the addition of only 114,000 jobs — which isn’t enough to keep up with population growth. What happened? Instead of focusing on that point, Mark Halperin instead points to a tweet from Jack Welch in order to marginalize the question:

Here’s the tweet from Welch:
Jack Welch ✔@jack_welch Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers
5 Oct 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite


That’s been retweeted over 1500 times so far, which demonstrates that (a) Welch has a lot of followers on Twitter — over 1.3 million — and (b) more than a few people are puzzled about this jobs report.

Scarborough and Geist are right to express skepticism, but it doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theory to say that the numbers don’t make sense. CNBC’s senior economics reporter said the same thing in his analysis this morning, too. If the BLS wanted to tweak the numbers to make Obama look good, though, they would have come up with a better number than +114K overall.


What is the issue, then? Kevin Hassett reminds us at The Corner that BLS uses two surveys, the Household survey and the Establishments survey, and the +873K number comes from the former while the +114K number comes from the latter. The media usually reminds readers/viewers that the Household survey is considered less reliable than the Establishments survey … at least during Republican administrations:

Today’s jobs report is a classic. The report, of course, reveals the results of two surveys, one of households, one of establishments. The professional economists and the press usually emphasize the establishment survey because it is viewed as less volatile.

The establishment survey was terrible. The 114,000 number of jobs created on net in September is well below the average for this year (146,000) and the average for last year (153,000). This is wholly consistent with the story that the economy is decelerating sharply as we head into the fall. …

Back when President Bush presided over a jobless recovery, the household survey tended to show better news. At the time, every media organization carefully emphasized the establishment numbers, and warned that the household numbers are suspect. That, of course, is what happens when a Republican is in office. For President Obama, you can expect a household survey lovefest.

The AP story that went up at 8:33, of course, emphasized the household survey, even adding, “The decline could help Obama, who is coming off a disappointing debate against Mitt Romney.” Get ready for more of the same.

Keep an eye on the U-6 measure of unemployment and underemployment, as Chris Cuomo insisted on Twitter this morning. That’s not budging from the 14%-15% range in which it has been for the last three-plus years.
Update: Jim Pethokoukis notes that one doesn’t need a conspiracy theory to show why these numbers don’t work:

James Pethokoukis @JimPethokoukis Conspiracy theories are a distraction. BLS numbers show sad, sickly, stagnant labor market bit.ly/SBFwKM #longemergency
5 Oct 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
James Pethokoukis @JimPethokoukis Good chance the final pre-election jobs report will show surge back above 8%
5 Oct 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
Be sure to read his post.

Update II: Here’s more from RDQ Economics, courtesy of another Jim Pethokoukis post:

all of it here
Scarborough: Something’s awfully odd about this job report « Hot Air