Unemployment falls to 8.3%

[Dr.House]

just for shits and grins

BLS-

jan 2009
unemployed 12 million
22.6% out of work 6 months or more

jan 2012
unemployed 12.8 million
42.9% out of work 6 months or more

And some fools think 0bama deserves 4 more years...

go fiigure...

 

[8537]

2.5 million jobs lost so the BLS looks and says ""Well, we think 1.2 million have just decided to give up looking for work so we won't count half of them, just to make things more accurate."

Huh? 1.2M have not given up looking for work.

The figures they released are a fraud. Government is lying to make Obama look good.

lol.

 

[8537]

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.

Except that Obama got Gaddafi and Bin Laden, and Reagan sent Bin Laden and Saddam weapons.

Hey, give Reagan some credit. When our Marines were murdered in Lebanon, he bravely invaded a small Caribbean island.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Huh? 1.2M have not given up looking for work.

The figures they released are a fraud. Government is lying to make Obama look good.

lol.

HUMMM
If the governments numbers are true why are only Less than a quarter of companies going to hire in 2012?

The employment picture won’t change much next year, with less than a quarter of hiring managers planning to take on more employees.

In a survey of more than 3,000 human resource and hiring professionals, 23% said they’ll add full-time, permanent staff in 2012, down a bit from the 24% who said the same this year, according to job search site CareerBuilder. The percentage of companies that plan to cut staff -– 7% -- hasn’t budged year over year.

Less than a quarter of companies to hire in 2012: CareerBuilder - latimes.com

 

[Article 15]

The figures they released are a fraud. Government is lying to make Obama look good.

lol.

HUMMM
If the governments numbers are true why are only Less than a quarter of companies going to hire in 2012?

Derp!

 

[8537]

The figures they released are a fraud. Government is lying to make Obama look good.

lol.

HUMMM
If the governments numbers are true why are only Less than a quarter of companies going to hire in 2012?

The employment picture won’t change much next year, with less than a quarter of hiring managers planning to take on more employees.

Did you read your own article? Permanent, FT employees. What do you think the average is in a given year?

and what of the 70% that were still unsure in Nov/Dec of last year. Do you think the employment and gdp figures might encourage them?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

lol.

HUMMM
If the governments numbers are true why are only Less than a quarter of companies going to hire in 2012?

The employment picture won’t change much next year, with less than a quarter of hiring managers planning to take on more employees.

Did you read your own article? Permanent, FT employees. What do you think the average is in a given year?

and what of the 70% that were still unsure in Nov/Dec of last year. Do you think the employment and gdp figures might encourage them?

In 2010 those same companies were asked the same question and 24% said they would be hiring in 2011. In 2011 those companies were asked and it drop to 23%. So the trend is dropping

How healthy was the economy in 2011 with 24% of companies saying they would be hiring?

Imagine what it's going to be like in 2012 with 1% less saying they will hire.

 

[8537]

HUMMM
If the governments numbers are true why are only Less than a quarter of companies going to hire in 2012?

The employment picture won’t change much next year, with less than a quarter of hiring managers planning to take on more employees.

Did you read your own article? Permanent, FT employees. What do you think the average is in a given year?

and what of the 70% that were still unsure in Nov/Dec of last year. Do you think the employment and gdp figures might encourage them?

In 2010 those same companies were asked the same question and 24% said they would be hiring in 2011. In 2011 those companies were asked and it drop to 23%. So the trend is dropping

How healthy was the economy in 2011 with 24% of companies saying they would be hiring?

Imagine what it's going to be like in 2012 with 1% less saying they will hire.

So you have no basis of comparison for that statistic (taken in Nov 2011). And you fail to mention that 70% were unsure at the time of the poll. And you fail to mention that the poll is asking about full time, permanent employment.

OK then.

 

[Article 15]

HUMMM
If the governments numbers are true why are only Less than a quarter of companies going to hire in 2012?

The employment picture won’t change much next year, with less than a quarter of hiring managers planning to take on more employees.

Did you read your own article? Permanent, FT employees. What do you think the average is in a given year?

and what of the 70% that were still unsure in Nov/Dec of last year. Do you think the employment and gdp figures might encourage them?

In 2010 those same companies were asked the same question and 24% said they would be hiring in 2011. In 2011 those companies were asked and it drop to 23%. So the trend is dropping

How healthy was the economy in 2011 with 24% of companies saying they would be hiring?

Imagine what it's going to be like in 2012 with 1% less saying they will hire.

More derp. For all you know the companies who will be hiring will be hiring moreso than they were in previous years and the unsure are still unsure.

But anyway....

In January of 2010 unemployment was at 9.7%
In January of 2011 unemployment was at 9.1%

(9.7 - 9.1)/9.7 = 6.18% drop in unemployment

In January of 2012 unemployment as at 8.3%

(9.1 - 8.3)/9.1 = 8.79% drop in unemployment

I'm thinking that trend continues despite that 1% you are touting.

Get it?

Of course, you don't!

 

[Article 15]

Bigreb: Hurr!!!!!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Did you read your own article? Permanent, FT employees. What do you think the average is in a given year?

and what of the 70% that were still unsure in Nov/Dec of last year. Do you think the employment and gdp figures might encourage them?

In 2010 those same companies were asked the same question and 24% said they would be hiring in 2011. In 2011 those companies were asked and it drop to 23%. So the trend is dropping

How healthy was the economy in 2011 with 24% of companies saying they would be hiring?

Imagine what it's going to be like in 2012 with 1% less saying they will hire.

So you have no basis of comparison for that statistic (taken in Nov 2011). And you fail to mention that 70% were unsure at the time of the poll. And you fail to mention that the poll is asking about full time, permanent employment.

OK then.

No basis of comparison for that statistic? Maybe you should do some more reading of that article.

down a bit from the 24% who said the same this year

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Did you read your own article? Permanent, FT employees. What do you think the average is in a given year?

and what of the 70% that were still unsure in Nov/Dec of last year. Do you think the employment and gdp figures might encourage them?

In 2010 those same companies were asked the same question and 24% said they would be hiring in 2011. In 2011 those companies were asked and it drop to 23%. So the trend is dropping

How healthy was the economy in 2011 with 24% of companies saying they would be hiring?

Imagine what it's going to be like in 2012 with 1% less saying they will hire.

More derp. For all you know the companies who will be hiring will be hiring moreso than they were in previous years and the unsure are still unsure.

But anyway....

In January of 2010 unemployment was at 9.7%
In January of 2011 unemployment was at 9.1%

(9.7 - 9.1)/9.7 = 6.18% drop in unemployment

In January of 2012 unemployment as at 8.3%

(9.1 - 8.3)/9.1 = 8.79% drop in unemployment

I'm thinking that trend continues despite that 1% you are touting.

Get it?

Of course, you don't!

Don't argue with me argue with the L.A.Times derpboy

 

[IndependntLogic]

It's ludicrous to say Obama is the reason for our current economic woes. He had a mess dumped on his lap. Oh well, you wanted to be president.
The notion that Obama has done something that hurt the economy is rarely supported by substantive facts or evidence. It's usually fluff.
However he could have done much to assuage the problems he inherited and instead, he blew the first 8 months of office on a POS health care plan that was so bad, the only Dems who dared mention it in the mid-terms, were the ones bragging they DIDN'T support it.
It is only during the last year he has done much.
2012 is anyone's race.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's ludicrous to say Obama is the reason for our current economic woes. He had a mess dumped on his lap. Oh well, you wanted to be president.
The notion that Obama has done something that hurt the economy is rarely supported by substantive facts or evidence. It's usually fluff.
However he could have done much to assuage the problems he inherited and instead, he blew the first 8 months of office on a POS health care plan that was so bad, the only Dems who dared mention it in the mid-terms, were the ones bragging they DIDN'T support it.
It is only during the last year he has done much.
2012 is anyone's race.

Here's the problem obama put all his energy and effort towards healthcare when he should have been applying it to the economy. He pushed now the economy is pushing back.

 

[Listening]

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.

Except that Obama got Gaddafi and Bin Laden, and Reagan sent Bin Laden and Saddam weapons.

Still talking out your ass.

For Reagan's second term, it was given. The dems didn't even mount a threat. The sacraficed Mondale in what was a blowout.

Please be so stupid as to think that Obama is going to have that kind of support from this nation.

And then there will be no doubt you are the board moron.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Anyone remember which wingnuts here guaranteed that unemployment would go back up after the holidays...the ones too stupid to comprehend the phrase 'seasonally adjusted'?

lol

Typically, you can set your watch to the fact that unemployment goes up in January. It's pretty much unheard of for jobs to be created in the first month of the year, as temporary help for the holidays is cut loose, not to mention consumer spending takes a nose dive from people recovering from the holidays. The fact that the economy has actually shown a net gain in jobs in January is an extremely encouraging sign.

Lol, you are such a moron....

 

[JimBowie1958]

Huh? 1.2M have not given up looking for work.

The figures they released are a fraud. Government is lying to make Obama look good.

lol.

Wow! 243,000 New Jobs Created in January | The Economic Populist

First, ever since the credit crisis of 2008, there has been a trend in the unemployment report that shows a declining participation rate in the job market. While a whopping number of jobs were created in January, a far larger number of people left the labor force - 1,752,000 in fact. The percent of the total working population who did not have jobs rose to 36.7%, an all time high. It’s no wonder the unemployment rate fell, when the denominator shrinks so markedly. The total number of people employed fell by 737,000. So what do you want to celebrate – the 243,000 who got jobs, or the million or so people who dropped by the wayside and are no longer counted in the data?

It makes you wonder how much faith you can put in the Labor Department reports. For example, the government, the business press, and Wall Street rarely report on the fundamental ways in which the US labor market is changing, with so many people dropping out of the work force. The press has had a hard enough time getting to grips with the Labor Department’s Birth/Death model, which over time adds to the number of people reported as employed. The model is supposed to compensate for the inability of the government to get good information on the number of new businesses created every month and which presumably add to employment. The problem is the model has been shown in the past to have significantly overestimated the number of jobs created by new businesses. Economists still don’t know if the model is appropriate, and how much of the 243,000 jobs created this month are the result of the Birth/Death model.

The other odd thing about the January report is that it does not coincide with most other evidence about the US labor market. There have been tens of thousands of high paying jobs lost in recent months on Wall Street. American Airlines just announced it is cutting 14,000 employees this year. Challenger, Gray and Christmas, an executive outplacement firm that does job surveys, reported that this January job layoffs increased by 28%. The Gallup survey on business employment indicated a rise in unemployment at the start of this year.

Wow. But Is the Number Real? - NYTimes.com

The Labor Department estimated on Friday that the economy gained 243,000 jobs.

The department also estimated that the economy lost 2,689,000 jobs in the month.

Proving once again that there are lies, damned lies and statistics....

 

[Chris]

 

[JimBowie1958]

The employment numbers are 'up' only by estimation since the total employment pool has been reduced by millions of jobs and is now at one of its historically lowest participation levels in decades. GDP is up because deficit government spending is up, mostly.

These two charts explain the slight-of-hand pretty well.

And as for the stock market goes that is a bubble driven by quantitative easing programs over the last few years. The time will come when the spigot gets turned off then the whole house of cards will teeter until China or Europe collapse.

 

[Chris]

The employment numbers are 'up' only by estimation since the total employment pool has been reduced by millions of jobs and is now at one of its historically lowest participation levels in decades. GDP is up because deficit government spending is up, mostly.

These two charts explain the slight-of-hand pretty well.

And as for the stock market goes that is a bubble driven by quantitative easing programs over the last few years. The time will come when the spigot gets turned off then the whole house of cards will teeter until China or Europe collapse.

Glad you figured out that the stimulus worked, and baby boomers are retiring.

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.