Unemployment drops to 7.8%

[YmirGF]

One take I heard on the news last night for these numbers is that while unemployment is down overall, it's up in every "swing state" but Ohio, so the Romney campaign would still be able to spin this announcement in their favour.

But when the method of establishing those numbers does not take into account people who have fallen off the grid, they are subtracted, it makes the whole claim of "unemployment being down" suspect, if not outright vapid. Though technically true, it simply does not reflect reality. My guess is that this won't pass muster will the American people who are down in the trenches.

 

[Quiddity]

But when the method of establishing those numbers does not take into account people who have fallen off the grid, they are subtracted, it makes the whole claim of "unemployment being down" suspect, if not outright vapid. Though technically true, it simply does not reflect reality. My guess is that this won't pass muster will the American people who are down in the trenches.

I would have thought most people would have seen the smoke, made the connection to the holidays coming and seen it's just a facade.

 

[esmith]

I would have thought most people would have seen the smoke, made the connection to the holidays coming and seen it's just a facade.

No, not really. The majority of the American public is not concerned with the population in whole, they are only interested in what directly affects them. That is the problem in this country, it is starting to turn into a "me first" mentality. I really like JFK's "ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for the country" (think I have the wording correct)

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

The majority of the American public is not concerned with the population in whole, they are only interested in what directly affects them. That is the problem in this country, it is starting to turn into a "me first" mentality. I really like JFK's "ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for the country" (think I have the wording correct)

Whereas your recent call for an end to welfare displays both selflessness and profound compassion.

-Nato

 

[Falvlun]

As you most know I am a rabid economic conservative. I do not believe that the books were cooked. I really believe that this is the season when business's take on part time help and this is what helped bring the unemployment figures down, also school started and students are taken out of the equation. So I really believe that the numbers are accurate, it is just that the data really doesn't show the economic health of the country. After listing to various sources (Fox Business Channel) and doing some reading on my own, I really believe that the U6 data is the most effective way to judge the health of the US economy.

It's interesting though, that all these claims of the unemployment number not meaning much only comes out when the numbers are looking good. When they're bad, it seems everyone loves to point to them to prove that the economy sucks.

What is the U6 data though? I'm interested. Never have heard of it.

But when the method of establishing those numbers does not take into account people who have fallen off the grid, they are subtracted, it makes the whole claim of "unemployment being down" suspect, if not outright vapid. Though technically true, it simply does not reflect reality. My guess is that this won't pass muster will the American people who are down in the trenches.

I mentioned this before, but I think it bears repeating again. The problem with this argumentation is that it could be used on every single other unemployment number as well. The people who have "fallen off the grid" have never been taken into account. That means all and every unemployment number ever given were meaningless, not just the ones now, under President Obama.

I think as long as you are comparing apples to apples, you're fine, ie, unemployment numbers without the people who have given up. Or the number of people who have given up. Or unemployment numbers plus the people who have given up.

But you can't compare unemployment numbers without the people giving up (say, numbers during Reagan's or Clinton's time) with unemployment numbers with the people who have given up (that 11% + number thrown around by conservatives trying to give the "true" unemployment number under Obama's presidency), because that's just a dishonest comparison. It's apples to oranges at that point.

 

[Sunstone]

To address the "cooked" remark. NO, I do not believe that the Labor Dept. was directed to produce a "cooked" figure by the Obamaniacs pretending to run the country, I am sure they are doing it, as they always have done, however, due to the sampling method, these figures are - to an extent - "cooked" figures.

I've seldom known anyone as capable of weasel words as you, Paul.

 

[esmith]

here is one link to description of the U6 unemployment data. If you google U6 unemployment you can get further information

U-6 Unemployment Rate - What Does It Mean?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But when the method of establishing those numbers does not take into account people who have fallen off the grid, they are subtracted, it makes the whole claim of "unemployment being down" suspect, if not outright vapid. Though technically true, it simply does not reflect reality. My guess is that this won't pass muster will the American people who are down in the trenches.

I think it's well-known that the unemployment rate is measured against the available workforce, not the total population. In fact, when they announced the latest employment numbers here in Canada recently, they were careful to note that even though the unemployment rate had gone up slightly, the overall results were actually positive, because the number of jobs created was well above forecasts and people who had given up finding jobs were being enticed back into the labour pool.

Now... are you trying to argue that the US unemployment rate has gone down because people have left the workforce and not because people have been getting jobs? If so, please feel free to back it up; all the numbers you need are published, so you should have no problem at all building your case... as long as it's true.

 

[Quiddity]

I think it's well-known that the unemployment rate is measured against the available workforce, not the total population. In fact, when they announced the latest employment numbers here in Canada recently, they were careful to note that even though the unemployment rate had gone up slightly, the overall results were actually positive, because the number of jobs created was well above forecasts and people who had given up finding jobs were being enticed back into the labour pool.

Now... are you trying to argue that the US unemployment rate has gone down because people have left the workforce and not because people have been getting jobs? If so, please feel free to back it up; all the numbers you need are published, so you should have no problem at all building your case... as long as it's true.

Not what I got out of it. He's just saying that not only is the rate not including those off the grid (people no longer looking or in unemplyment), but the jobs that were created:
a) are known to always increase at this time [September]
b) are temporary/seasonal

They are as much an illusion as trying to dismiss those off the grid. You can say that unemployment went down but you need to hold your breath once your done because that's how long it will take to go back (if not worse) to it's original number.

 

[YmirGF]

Not what I got out of it. He's just saying that not only is the rate not including those off the grid (people no longer looking or in unemplyment), but the jobs that were created:
a) are known to always increase at this time [September]
b) are temporary/seasonal

They are as much an illusion as trying to dismiss those off the grid. You can say that unemployment went down but you need to hold your breath once your done because that's how long it will take to go back (if not worse) to it's original number.

Thank goodness someone is paying attention.

I've seldom known anyone as capable of weasel words as you, Paul.

Given the source of this quote, I'll take that as a tremendous compliment. Thanks Phil.

 

[Old Scratch]

I smell sulfur. Uncle Scratch, are you lurking around here?

Of course! Long ago the bizarre & evil method of calculating the unemployment rate I designed!
Your real circumstances to understate important are, lest you corrective measures take.

 

[Alceste]

Not what I got out of it. He's just saying that not only is the rate not including those off the grid (people no longer looking or in unemplyment), but the jobs that were created:
a) are known to always increase at this time [September]
b) are temporary/seasonal

They are as much an illusion as trying to dismiss those off the grid. You can say that unemployment went down but you need to hold your breath once your done because that's how long it will take to go back (if not worse) to it's original number.

This is a long term trend, not a seasonal bump.

Charts That Should Get Obama Reelected - Business Insider

 

[Revoltingest]

http://blogs.ajc.com/radio-tv-talk/files/2009/10/lee-najjar-mansion.jpg
It seems that Jack Welch might be on to something in questioning the sudden dramatic change in proffered unemployment numbers.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archive...laims-dropped-because-bls-omitted-california/
Given that Cal is a very populous state with almost the highest unemployment rate in the nation, isn't it suspicious that they weren't
included in the Sept unemployment numbers? Just before the election too. Call me a cynic, but I wouldn't put it past politicians to do
something so convenient as game the numbers. Looks like a case of Jerry helping Barry.
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
Too many people are looking for a single month to make a trend. Moreover, it wouldn't even mean the previous 4 years of policy
are responsible for the possible trend. And given that they predicted the unemployment rate would remain below 8%, the fact that
it rose & stayed above 8% would make suspect their reliability in predicting anything.

 

[Alceste]

http://blogs.ajc.com/radio-tv-talk/files/2009/10/lee-najjar-mansion.jpg
It seems that Jack Welch might be on to something in questioning the sudden dramatic change in proffered unemployment numbers.
About That Jobs Report?Updated: Jobless claims dropped because BLS omitted California « The Greenroom
Too many people are looking for a single month to make a trend. Moreover, it wouldn't even mean that the previous 4 years of policy
are responsible for the possible trend. And given that they predicted the unemployment rate would remain below 8%, the fact that it
rose & stayed above 8% would make suspect their reliability in predicting anything.

This doesn't acknowledge the fact that the new figures are consistent with the long term trend that has seen steadily declining unemployment numbers since shortly after the stimulus bill was passed. The funny thing is that he included a graph showing this fact in the article, then tried to use it to argue the opposite.

Man, these Republican hacks are desperate!