I didn't read it....I just saw it a few minutes ago when one of their financial anchors was explaining it.

And if you can't follow it...just look up last months numbers online. All the news organizations explained it very carefully.

Here it is in my condensed version: Last month the rate dropped a couple of points. But LESS jobs were created than the month before. That shouldn't be able to happen. There should be MORE jobs created to drop the unemployment rate.
But what happened is that more people gave up looking for work and dropped out of the work force.

The official unemployment rate does NOT count those people. So the rate showed that unemployment was down...even though it was not.

This month even LESS new jobs were created than last month (because everyone is holding off until after the election). And yet the rate dropped again.
And that's because for the second month in a row even more people dropped out of the job market.

Does that make sense? I'm not an economist so I don't know if I'm explaining it very well.

You guys should look at raw data, not some spin you get from news sources...

www.bls.gov
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm

Here is a good one to look at:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

so past year the employment did indeed increase, BUT only at a slightly higher rate than population growth..

The labor dept numbers are based on phone interviews.

That alone should tell you how easy it would be to sway the numbers how ever the fuck you want.

The real number is around 23%, which includes people unemployed along with those who stopped looking and those who are underemployed working part time or lower quality jobs than what they are qualified for...

The importance is that the number is improving rather than getting worse and that will matter more in the election than all the conventions and debates combined.

Now Obama gets to say factually that the economy is recovering and Romney can say its happening too slowly. A much better position for Obama than if the numbers got worse.

The numbers are being compared to the same numbers in the same way by impartial policy wonks from both parties. You can argue the number is off, but its off by as much as it always is, so all that matters is the rate of change and the number this time versus last time.

:2 cents::2 cents::1orglaugh

That looks promising. :thumbsup

Seriously, this is the dumbest thing I've read all month. Do you realize how many security guards that would have to be hired to effect the number at all? Are you drunk?

Yes, thank you.

Did they mention what the number / percentage is for these people that are not in the work force compared to the past? Or..."number of people in the job market were the same as when Obama took office"...What was that number compared to now?

You don't have to dig up info if you have better shit to do, just curious.

Why are you on here? Isn't it orange picking season? You're supposed to be out the groves right now!


(lazy bastard!)




.

Last month there were LESS new jobs created than the month before. This month there were LESS new jobs than last month.

Both months are way below the number required to "break even". How is that "improving"?

Is that Washington D.C. style "improving"? You know like when they "cut" the budget by spending more money? lol

I find that number highly unlikely. I know a lot of people and not one of them are unemployed.

You obviously are either reading impaired or mentally handicapped .:2 cents:

I'm just eating something and fucking around on GFY before I go to the gym. But here is what I found real quick:
"April 2009, the specific number was 154,731,000 in the civilian workforce. There are also approximately 1,500,000 in the military workforce."

I can't find the exact numbers for 2012 with a quick search on Google. But I did find the exact numbers of new jobs and people who LEFT the workforce: There were 114,000 NEW jobs created this month. BUT...342,000 people LEFT the workforce!

So the unemployment numbers "see" that as the unemployment rate getting better by 456,000 ! That's how the rate "dropped"

But there were not 456,000 new jobs created. :( Only 114,000
And you have to create 200,000 actual new jobs every month to keep up with population growth.

I'm sure that over the next few days we will see the actual number of people that are in the workforce posted as the numbers get analyzed and posted.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh




.

shadowstats.com

:Oh crap

Don't be an idiot.. cost of living is why people need more money in the US vs your little 3rd world workers that would kill for that. $10 hour is pretty much McDonald's wages in all honestly.

It's true. We've made our money worthless here in the U.S. and through all the various things that govt. has done over the past few decades we've driven the cost of business up to the point that everything in the U.S. costs a lot more than it used to.

I was just talking to a girl who moved here to Vegas from L.A. a year ago. I thought that living in Vegas is expensive (compared to South Carolina)...but she said that living in California was more than twice as expensive.

The unintended consequence of some of the fees, licensing, taxes, insurance, etc. is that it drives up the cost of living. And then we raise the minimum wage to match that...and that act itself drives up the cost even more.

It's like a vicious cycle

No. AFTER revising the last month numbers... they were. This month's numbers will also get revised in a month or two and will likely be better than what is shown now as well.

The numbers are better than breaking even. You might want to read a little more about it. The numbers are not 'good' but they are clearly 'better' and the trend is positive without any doubt.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ez...ely-good-news/

So lets just get right to the bottom line here.

When the unemployment numbers go up, it's all about look what a screw up Obama is.
That guy is ruining the country.

When they go down, it's look what a screw up Obama is.
That guy is ruining the country.


If a rigged number is 10 one month and 8 the next, you can still rely on it to the same CRUDE extent you relied on it when it was 10. An indicator.

The jobs number was known to be coming out today. There's nothing weird about it except reactions to it. It means something or it means nothing. Not just this time, but all times prior as well, so take your pick and just stand behind it.

The real bottom line is that this is good for the country and for Obama by virtue of being the sitting president. Thats life.

When you know 100% of the national population you can speak with authority about the employment of the population. Since you likely know less than .000001% of the population, you 'not knowing people who are unemployed' is authoritative only when discussing .000001% of the population, which is a statistically meaningless segment of society for determining national employment data.

In webmaster terms that would be like saying 'I know a few people who have been to that site, so it must be one of the highest traffic sites in the world.' :2 cents:

For the crackpot conspiracy theorists:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...no-conspiracy/

The idea that the entire labor department (which has plenty of Republican policy wonks in it) could 'cook the numbers' and put billions of dollars of investments by private investors at risk without anyone finding out or blowing the whistle for political purposes is as crazy as the whack-jobs who say we never went to the moon or that the holocaust didn't happen. People can dislike Obama, they can say the recovery isn't fast enough or broad enough... or could be done better, but it is a simple fact that employment numbers are improving.

With so many true things to slam him about, it is nonsensical for people to try and make up false accusations about him. :2 cents:

No they are not. You're reading a blog.

The govt. says that 200,000 NEW jobs have to be created to "break even" Only 114,000 were created which was even lower than the month before.
350,000 LEFT the job market this month.

Those are the numbers. I don't care what some blog says. I'm just telling you the numbers. :)

How so shit for brains? What exactly are you even commenting on? If you're going to be part of the conversation, then say something that doesn't sound like it's sliding out of the end of your mouth or just shut the fuck up.

Robbie, when Bush was winding down his 8 years, you said those high unemployment figures didn't mean much.
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=15107942&postcount=44

:1orglaugh

They didn't. The economy was still good.

People weren't on welfare and foodstamps and loooonnnnnngggg unemployment benefits for years.

It's pretty much common sense that when companies are doing well, and the economy is doing well, and companies are NOT firing people in mass layoffs...then there are NOT hundreds of thousands of people leaving the work force.

I'm not sure why you keep thinking that I'm saying things that I'm not. Are you gunning for me? lol

Look...this is the worst economy in decades. The unemployment numbers during a booming economy are pretty close because there aren't tons of people giving up looking for a job. Does that make sense to you?

The numbers happening right now are being thrown off by the number of people who did give up. I think the number I read was 1.2 million people LESS in the workforce than there were 4 years ago.

I'm just telling you the numbers. Bush didn't have high companies going out of business and people losing their jobs in these huge numbers. So he didn't have the factor of people leaving the workforce to skew the numbers.

You can see that right?

EDIT: By the way you quoted me from a post on Nov. 16th 2008
The unemployment rate was at 6.8% then. So yeah...my post 4 years ago was at a time BEFORE the shit fell to pieces in 2009

I didn't really read anything damaging towards Robbie in this post.
Digging up old posts like that gets a little creepy. :uhoh

Brujah is trying to take me down! :1orglaugh

lol no, but I think it's fascinating to compare posts made during different presidencies or parties, to see how they spin things. Mostly to see how they justify it being ok during one party, and then quite the opposite during another.

:2 cents:

ADG

People leaving the workforce is also due to seasonal employment, having said that the numbers will be even better next month due to campaigns hiring people for the election season.

but these numbers are meaningless

The only problem is that Mitt Romney based some of his attack on a fictional 8% figure and now its 7.8%. I fail to see how 0.2% of a fictional system means something

I'm just talking about the law of average. If twenty percent of the people are unemployed, that's 1 in 5 people. I know hundreds of people here in town and not one of them is unemployed. Granted, I would like to think that my friends are bit higher up the ladder than the bottom of the barrel, but still, odds say that I should know a few people who are out of work and looking. I don't.

Come to think of it, the only person I knew who was unemployed in the past four years was my wife...

I fail to see what the hell you're talking about, when Romney gave the debate, he said above 8% unemployment. Then it was above 8%. That number is based on those receiving unemployment. It's not fictional, it just doesn't show just how many people are truly out of work which is a lot higher. His attack was based on the FACT that under Obama, the unemployment rate has been above 8% for a long time, where don't you see that?

So this is a new thing, right? I mean, it's not like entire generations of families haven't been brought up on welfare.

But at any given time, no matter what the economy, there are people who are unemployed that aren't counted. Why is it only in the past few years that this has been an issue? The same problem existed while Bush was in office, but no one questioned it then.

i just heard David Brooks agree with you. He is a conservative.

If you want to browse through some history...

The day before Obama was elected.
https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26...e=-1&page=2190

Around when Bush was elected for his second term.
https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26...e=-1&page=7658

Because he wasnt Obama. lol

more like the unemployment rate wasn't above 8% for most of his presidency. BTW, this has been an issue for years as to how presidents have made changes to effect the %