Unemployment falls to 8.3%

[tatria]

Hopefully it keeps dropping

 

[Big Fitz]

See Table 1.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/10/art2full.pdf

Again there is information that the numbers have been scewed do you have something other than obama's numbers?

They aren't Obama's numbers. They are from 2001 though. Check the bottom of every page in the document.

a little 9/10 thinking I see

 

[bigrebnc1775]

See Table 1.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/10/art2full.pdf

Again there is information that the numbers have been scewed do you have something other than obama's numbers?

They aren't Obama's numbers. They are from 2001 though. Check the bottom of every page in the document.

I have recently stopped looking at government numbers no matter the party they can no longer be trusted.

Plus he has stated that baby boomers have retired I want to see those numbers of how many actually retired at 62

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then don't use them if you can't understand them, bigreb, and stop lying about them when you do use them.

 

[saveliberty]

Again there is information that the numbers have been scewed do you have something other than obama's numbers?

They aren't Obama's numbers. They are from 2001 though. Check the bottom of every page in the document.

I have recently stopped looking at government numbers no matter the party they can no longer be trusted.

Plus he has stated that baby boomers have retired I want to see those numbers of how many actually retired at 62

Oh, I'd like to see them too. Certainly what he posted holds no validity in 2012.

 

[edthecynic]

In Oct 2011 when the U-3 rate was 8.9% there were 140,297,000 employed and 13,759,000 unemployed, however in Jan 2012 there were 141,637,000 employed and 12,758,000 unemployed. Apparently that fits with what you WANT to see "out there."

The data says about 1.5 million were added due to the Census changes. Also, 1.2 million were now considered out of the unemplyed count. Same reason.

You keep jumping around, are you still comparing the 8.9% Oct 2011 UE rate to the Jan 2012 8.3% UE rate that you said had the same numbers? If so, the employed people increased by 1.3 million for that period.

Now you're reduced to lying.

You obviously thought I wouldn't be able to find the earlier post at the top after the threads were merged. [/quote]

Nothing of the sort. I just replied to your post later in that thread and disproved it. Its math. THREE variables changed not one.[/QUOTE]
No you didn't. You then shifted to the 1.2 million dropped BS, which I then shot down in flames.
Again see above earlier post.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then don't use them if you can't understand them, bigreb, and stop lying about them when you do use them.

Obama’s made-up jobless numbers

When it comes to the unemployment rate, it’s nice to be president.

Sure, it wasn’t so nice for President Obama in October 2009, when the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics declared the rate was 10 percent. But exactly a year from Election Day 2012, the rate began a precipitous plunge, first to 8.9 percent, then the next month, to 8.7, then to 8.5. And just last week, the BLS said the rate had fallen all the way down to 8.3 percent.

If the spectacular “recovery” keeps up at the same pace, the rate will be 6.3 percent by Nov. 6. It hasn’t been that low since — well, all but four of the 96 months George W. Bush was in office. But you get the point. America is back!! Woo-hoooo!!
CURL: Obama's made-up jobless numbers - Washington Times

 

[saveliberty]

The data says about 1.5 million were added due to the Census changes. Also, 1.2 million were now considered out of the unemplyed count. Same reason.

You keep jumping around, are you still comparing the 8.9% Oct 2011 UE rate to the Jan 2012 8.3% UE rate that you said had the same numbers? If so, the employed people increased by 1.3 million for that period.

Now you're reduced to lying.

You obviously thought I wouldn't be able to find the earlier post at the top after the threads were merged.

Nothing of the sort. I just replied to your post later in that thread and disproved it. Its math. THREE variables changed not one.[/QUOTE]
No you didn't. You then shifted to the 1.2 million dropped BS, which I then shot down in flames.
Again see above earlier post. [/QUOTE]

I have a whole group of Wall Street analysts that see it as I do. I'm comfy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then don't use them if you can't understand them, bigreb, and stop lying about them when you do use them.

Obama’s made-up jobless numbers

When it comes to the unemployment rate, it’s nice to be president.

Sure, it wasn’t so nice for President Obama in October 2009, when the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics declared the rate was 10 percent. But exactly a year from Election Day 2012, the rate began a precipitous plunge, first to 8.9 percent, then the next month, to 8.7, then to 8.5. And just last week, the BLS said the rate had fallen all the way down to 8.3 percent.

If the spectacular “recovery” keeps up at the same pace, the rate will be 6.3 percent by Nov. 6. It hasn’t been that low since — well, all but four of the 96 months George W. Bush was in office. But you get the point. America is back!! Woo-hoooo!!
CURL: Obama's made-up jobless numbers - Washington Times

These are the made up job numbers from the numbe producers you don't trust unless you get to use them to show that you don't care about the country and will let it fail?

Those numbers?

 

[edthecynic]

They aren't Obama's numbers. They are from 2001 though. Check the bottom of every page in the document.

I have recently stopped looking at government numbers no matter the party they can no longer be trusted.

Plus he has stated that baby boomers have retired I want to see those numbers of how many actually retired at 62

Oh, I'd like to see them too. Certainly what he posted holds no validity in 2012.

first of all, there is nothing invalid about the data I gave. People on the average have been retiring at 62 since 2001. Why don't you provide data that they are retiring on the average at an older age in 2011.

Secondly, why are you CON$ so lazy that you won't find data that contradicts what I linked to, all you do is dismiss it because it doesen't jive with the unsubstantiated lies from GOP hate media? Why don't you demand proof from the lying sources you cite who claim that the 1.2 million who dropped out of the labor force were discouraged rather than retired or disabled???

And lastly when I take the time to look up the data from the Social security Administration, you lazy CON$ will just refuse to accept it because it comes from the government.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n1/ssb-v71n1.pdf

Table 2page 78 shows in Dec 2010 there were 34,592,000 Retired workers and 8,205,000 Disabled workers.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, December 2011

Table 2 shows in Dec 2011 there were 35,599,000 Retired workers and 8,576,000 Disabled workers.

Do the math and you see that more than 1.37 million workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, not counting people who died, went back to school, stopped working to take care of a sick or injured family member, left the country, etc., so the BLS reduction of the labor force by only 1.2 million clearly UNDERESTIMATES the number leaving the workforce, so the 8.3% U-3 rate is probably too high. Are you happy now???

Now it's time for your rationalizations why those numbers are wrong.

 

[edthecynic]

I have a whole group of Wall Street analysts that see it as I do. I'm comfy.

Which only proves what I have shown repeatedly, CON$ will always lie in packs.
Why don't you ever demand proof from the lying sources you agree with? Prove that 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in 2011 because they were discouraged! I want to see the supporting numbers!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then don't use them if you can't understand them, bigreb, and stop lying about them when you do use them.

Obama’s made-up jobless numbers

When it comes to the unemployment rate, it’s nice to be president.

Sure, it wasn’t so nice for President Obama in October 2009, when the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics declared the rate was 10 percent. But exactly a year from Election Day 2012, the rate began a precipitous plunge, first to 8.9 percent, then the next month, to 8.7, then to 8.5. And just last week, the BLS said the rate had fallen all the way down to 8.3 percent.

If the spectacular “recovery” keeps up at the same pace, the rate will be 6.3 percent by Nov. 6. It hasn’t been that low since — well, all but four of the 96 months George W. Bush was in office. But you get the point. America is back!! Woo-hoooo!!
CURL: Obama's made-up jobless numbers - Washington Times

These are the made up job numbers from the numbe producers you don't trust unless you get to use them to show that you don't care about the country and will let it fail?

Those numbers?

OK Jake I am only going to type this one time.
it's election years, the government is corrupted. obama is a corrupt politician' obama appointed the current Secretary of Labor. The unemployment numbers have dropped rapidly, but no new jobs have been reported with exception from the BLS which comes from the department of labor. Who is in charge of the department of Labor? No president has been re-elected with high unemployment numbers under his watch. Then we have that source that has already been posted and I have posted it in this thread.
Are you following me?

 

[Conservative]

Obama’s made-up jobless numbers

When it comes to the unemployment rate, it’s nice to be president.

Sure, it wasn’t so nice for President Obama in October 2009, when the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics declared the rate was 10 percent. But exactly a year from Election Day 2012, the rate began a precipitous plunge, first to 8.9 percent, then the next month, to 8.7, then to 8.5. And just last week, the BLS said the rate had fallen all the way down to 8.3 percent.

If the spectacular “recovery” keeps up at the same pace, the rate will be 6.3 percent by Nov. 6. It hasn’t been that low since — well, all but four of the 96 months George W. Bush was in office. But you get the point. America is back!! Woo-hoooo!!
CURL: Obama's made-up jobless numbers - Washington Times

These are the made up job numbers from the numbe producers you don't trust unless you get to use them to show that you don't care about the country and will let it fail?

Those numbers?

OK Jake I am only going to type this one time.
it's election years, the government is corrupted. obama is a corrupt politician' obama appointed the current Secretary of Labor. The unemployment numbers have dropped rapidly, but no new jobs have been reported with exception from the BLS which comes from the department of labor. Who is in charge of the department of Labor? No president has been re-elected with high unemployment numbers under his watch. Then we have that source that has already been posted and I have posted it in this thread.
Are you following me?

liar

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have recently stopped looking at government numbers no matter the party they can no longer be trusted.

Plus he has stated that baby boomers have retired I want to see those numbers of how many actually retired at 62

Oh, I'd like to see them too. Certainly what he posted holds no validity in 2012.

first of all, there is nothing invalid about the data I gave. People on the average have been retiring at 62 since 2001. Why don't you provide data that they are retiring on the average at an older age in 2011.

Secondly, why are you CON$ so lazy that you won't find data that contradicts what I linked to, all you do is dismiss it because it doesen't jive with the unsubstantiated lies from GOP hate media? Why don't you demand proof from the lying sources you cite who claim that the 1.2 million who dropped out of the labor force were discouraged rather than retired or disabled???

And lastly when I take the time to look up the data from the Social security Administration, you lazy CON$ will just refuse to accept it because it comes from the government.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n1/ssb-v71n1.pdf

Table 2page 78 shows in Dec 2010 there were 34,592,000 Retired workers and 8,205,000 Disabled workers.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, December 2011

Table 2 shows in Dec 2011 there were 35,599,000 Retired workers and 8,576,000 Disabled workers.

Do the math and you see that more than 1.3 million workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, not counting people who died, went back to school, stopped working to take care of a sick or injured family member, left the country, etc., so the BLS reduction of the labor force by only 1.2 million clearly UNDERESTIMATES the number leaving the workforce, so the 8.3% U-3 rate is probably too high. Are you happy now???

Now it's time for your rationalizations why those numbers are wrong.

2011 is not 2012 Where are those numbers showing baby boomers retired at the age they were supposed to retire.

Here's an article that says a large portion of baby boomers will decline retirement

What this will mean is that the age of retirement - or at least full-fledged retirement - may no longer be acceptable at 65, and especially not before that, as workers are going to have to keep working to support themselves since life expectancy is at one of its highest points in history.

Retiring Baby-Boomers and the Threat to the Economy

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama’s made-up jobless numbers

When it comes to the unemployment rate, it’s nice to be president.

Sure, it wasn’t so nice for President Obama in October 2009, when the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics declared the rate was 10 percent. But exactly a year from Election Day 2012, the rate began a precipitous plunge, first to 8.9 percent, then the next month, to 8.7, then to 8.5. And just last week, the BLS said the rate had fallen all the way down to 8.3 percent.

If the spectacular “recovery” keeps up at the same pace, the rate will be 6.3 percent by Nov. 6. It hasn’t been that low since — well, all but four of the 96 months George W. Bush was in office. But you get the point. America is back!! Woo-hoooo!!
CURL: Obama's made-up jobless numbers - Washington Times

These are the made up job numbers from the numbe producers you don't trust unless you get to use them to show that you don't care about the country and will let it fail?

Those numbers?

OK Jake I am only going to type this one time.
it's election years, the government is corrupted. obama is a corrupt politician' obama appointed the current Secretary of Labor. The unemployment numbers have dropped rapidly, but no new jobs have been reported with exception from the BLS which comes from the department of labor. Who is in charge of the department of Labor? No president has been re-elected with high unemployment numbers under his watch. Then we have that source that has already been posted and I have posted it in this thread.
Are you following me?

And I will give your comment the true answer it deserves: you are lying (again).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

These are the made up job numbers from the numbe producers you don't trust unless you get to use them to show that you don't care about the country and will let it fail?

Those numbers?

OK Jake I am only going to type this one time.
it's election years, the government is corrupted. obama is a corrupt politician' obama appointed the current Secretary of Labor. The unemployment numbers have dropped rapidly, but no new jobs have been reported with exception from the BLS which comes from the department of labor. Who is in charge of the department of Labor? No president has been re-elected with high unemployment numbers under his watch. Then we have that source that has already been posted and I have posted it in this thread.
Are you following me?

And I will give your comment the true answer it deserves: you are lying (again).

What am I lying about? care to point out which one is a lie? I see conservative gave you a thanks for your liberal post. Imagine that jake attacking someone who is a conservative and the troll known as conservative gives jake a thanks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, I'd like to see them too. Certainly what he posted holds no validity in 2012.

first of all, there is nothing invalid about the data I gave. People on the average have been retiring at 62 since 2001. Why don't you provide data that they are retiring on the average at an older age in 2011.

Secondly, why are you CON$ so lazy that you won't find data that contradicts what I linked to, all you do is dismiss it because it doesen't jive with the unsubstantiated lies from GOP hate media? Why don't you demand proof from the lying sources you cite who claim that the 1.2 million who dropped out of the labor force were discouraged rather than retired or disabled???

And lastly when I take the time to look up the data from the Social security Administration, you lazy CON$ will just refuse to accept it because it comes from the government.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n1/ssb-v71n1.pdf

Table 2page 78 shows in Dec 2010 there were 34,592,000 Retired workers and 8,205,000 Disabled workers.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, December 2011

Table 2 shows in Dec 2011 there were 35,599,000 Retired workers and 8,576,000 Disabled workers.

Do the math and you see that more than 1.3 million workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, not counting people who died, went back to school, stopped working to take care of a sick or injured family member, left the country, etc., so the BLS reduction of the labor force by only 1.2 million clearly UNDERESTIMATES the number leaving the workforce, so the 8.3% U-3 rate is probably too high. Are you happy now???

Now it's time for your rationalizations why those numbers are wrong.

2011 is not 2012 Where are those numbers showing baby boomers retired at the age they were supposed to retire.

Here's an article that says a large portion of baby boomers will decline retirement

What this will mean is that the age of retirement - or at least full-fledged retirement - may no longer be acceptable at 65, and especially not before that, as workers are going to have to keep working to support themselves since life expectancy is at one of its highest points in history.

Retiring Baby-Boomers and the Threat to the Economy

The operating word is not may. From the article: "This means that we are just about to see the initial effects of the first wave of baby-boomers retiring, and then society is not going to enjoy a significant let up in the amount of retirees for a good fifteen years or more. The manner in which this will affect the economy is extremely hard to predict, especially in the US where the systems of health care and social security are intrinsically flawed in and of themselves. The strain of a greater number of retiring and aging citizens on an economic system that is very tenuous in terms of safety-nets could be catastrophic for the working class generations who are coming up behind them and who are going to have to somehow keep the economy propped up on increasingly shaky legs."

Social security needs minor "fixing" and is not instrinsically flawed. The private sector and free markets have demonstrated they cannot "fix" the health care sector. The extremists to the Left and the Right have to be dismissed, and a consensus from right of to left of center must determine and then do the "fixing."

 

[edthecynic]

Oh, I'd like to see them too. Certainly what he posted holds no validity in 2012.

first of all, there is nothing invalid about the data I gave. People on the average have been retiring at 62 since 2001. Why don't you provide data that they are retiring on the average at an older age in 2011.

Secondly, why are you CON$ so lazy that you won't find data that contradicts what I linked to, all you do is dismiss it because it doesen't jive with the unsubstantiated lies from GOP hate media? Why don't you demand proof from the lying sources you cite who claim that the 1.2 million who dropped out of the labor force were discouraged rather than retired or disabled???

And lastly when I take the time to look up the data from the Social security Administration, you lazy CON$ will just refuse to accept it because it comes from the government.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n1/ssb-v71n1.pdf

Table 2page 78 shows in Dec 2010 there were 34,592,000 Retired workers and 8,205,000 Disabled workers.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, December 2011

Table 2 shows in Dec 2011 there were 35,599,000 Retired workers and 8,576,000 Disabled workers.

Do the math and you see that more than 1.3 million workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, not counting people who died, went back to school, stopped working to take care of a sick or injured family member, left the country, etc., so the BLS reduction of the labor force by only 1.2 million clearly UNDERESTIMATES the number leaving the workforce, so the 8.3% U-3 rate is probably too high. Are you happy now???

Now it's time for your rationalizations why those numbers are wrong.

2011 is not 2012 Where are those numbers showing baby boomers retired at the age they were supposed to retire.

Here's an article that says a large portion of baby boomers will decline retirement

What this will mean is that the age of retirement - or at least full-fledged retirement - may no longer be acceptable at 65, and especially not before that, as workers are going to have to keep working to support themselves since life expectancy is at one of its highest points in history.

Retiring Baby-Boomers and the Threat to the Economy

Another teachable moment!!!

Notice how the mindless CON$ervative just gave his knee jerk rejection of the numbers he demanded with the moronic claim that they were not 2012 numbers when the data for the year ending Dec 2011 was published Jan 2012. The year 2012 is not over, its just started, and the BLS data was for the year 2011, but the CON$ervative rejects the 2011 data because it is not for the incomplete year 2012!!!

But then the posts a link that gives no data and does not say "a large portion" and that settles it, real numbers are not acceptable, only unsupported opinion he agrees with is acceptable.

CON$ are the biggest mindless boobs on Earth!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Many conservatives do very well mentally and so do many leftists.

bigreb does not do well at all.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

first of all, there is nothing invalid about the data I gave. People on the average have been retiring at 62 since 2001. Why don't you provide data that they are retiring on the average at an older age in 2011.

Secondly, why are you CON$ so lazy that you won't find data that contradicts what I linked to, all you do is dismiss it because it doesen't jive with the unsubstantiated lies from GOP hate media? Why don't you demand proof from the lying sources you cite who claim that the 1.2 million who dropped out of the labor force were discouraged rather than retired or disabled???

And lastly when I take the time to look up the data from the Social security Administration, you lazy CON$ will just refuse to accept it because it comes from the government.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n1/ssb-v71n1.pdf

Table 2page 78 shows in Dec 2010 there were 34,592,000 Retired workers and 8,205,000 Disabled workers.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, December 2011

Table 2 shows in Dec 2011 there were 35,599,000 Retired workers and 8,576,000 Disabled workers.

Do the math and you see that more than 1.3 million workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, not counting people who died, went back to school, stopped working to take care of a sick or injured family member, left the country, etc., so the BLS reduction of the labor force by only 1.2 million clearly UNDERESTIMATES the number leaving the workforce, so the 8.3% U-3 rate is probably too high. Are you happy now???

Now it's time for your rationalizations why those numbers are wrong.

2011 is not 2012 Where are those numbers showing baby boomers retired at the age they were supposed to retire.

Here's an article that says a large portion of baby boomers will decline retirement

What this will mean is that the age of retirement - or at least full-fledged retirement - may no longer be acceptable at 65, and especially not before that, as workers are going to have to keep working to support themselves since life expectancy is at one of its highest points in history.

Retiring Baby-Boomers and the Threat to the Economy

Another teachable moment!!!

Notice how the mindless CON$ervative just gave his knee jerk rejection of the numbers he demanded with the moronic claim that they were not 2012 numbers when the data for the year ending Dec 2011 was published Jan 2012. The year 2012 is not over, its just started, and the BLS data was for the year 2011, but the CON$ervative rejects the 2011 data because it is not for the incomplete year 2012!!!

CON$ are the biggest mindless boobs on Earth!

Where are those numbers ed?