Unemployment rate drops to 7.8%

[Phurfur 70]

Nutrition tips from Phurfur!! Classic.

 

Yup, I am at where you are trying to get. Good Luck!

 

The most important factors in achieving good health are your genes.

[drobeski 3,061]

Yup, I am at where you are trying to get. Good Luck!

You're red ?

[jerryskids 6,930]

You're red ?

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You're red ?

 

 

Sh1t! I just lost a full swig of Shiner you fukker.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

You're red ?

 

That one was pretty good.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Last month there were 145,000 jobs created and the unemployment rate dropped .1%.

 

This month 114,000 jobs were created and it dropped .3%.

 

Fewer jobs, yet 3X the drop.

 

Hmmm............

 

Looks like Hilda Solis is trying to keep her job for 4 more years if Obama wins.

[mmmmm...beer 812]

oh jeez, let me guess, your great great great great slut aunt once focked an indian too ? Did you check the box ?

 

Ironically when my son was born did the genealogy thing... about 5 generations back.... "Striped Earth Woman" had a son with "Unknown English Soldier".

[mmmmm...beer 812]

i take my comment back, i didnt realize he was a member of the mexican drug cartel

 

Wrong brown guys... though if you look at most "compo" or country messicans they are pretty much Indians... tiny like the aztecs were.

 

Does it count if I bought dope from the mexican drug cartel?

[Phurfur 70]

23 million people out of work and 44 million on food stamps and the Dems think this is good news.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth nails it here.

 

Cooking the Books?

 

 

We’ve talked many times about a possible “October surprise” in the presidential race. I still believe that it will have something to do with student loan debt forgiveness, but was Friday’s 7.8% unemployment rate Obama’s October surprise? Some people may think so … people like James Pethokouskis. Then there are others like former GE CEO Jack Welch and CNBC’s Rick Santelli. Both had the nads to say exactly what many of us in America were thinking on Friday: Were these numbers manipulated to favor Obama? A question that offffffended our Labor Secretary Hilda Solis --- like we care. Wasn’t it you, Hilda, who decided that unemployment data would be collected and analyzed by the federal government instead of the states? Could this be why?

 

Now before we go any further, let me state this for the record. If this 7.8% U-3 unemployment rate is an accurate reflection of the unemployment situation in America, then than that is good thing. You never wish harm on someone else – and you never root against them getting the job they need to support their family, keep their home and put food on their tables. That type of negativism will come back and smite you like you would never believe. I hope the new unemployment numbers are true, because that would means that more Americans are finding jobs – not even enough to keep up with population growth – but enough for the ones who will actually now get pay checks.

 

Still --- the question remains, is this 7.8% unemployment rate an accurate reflection of what is happening in America? That is where things become questionable. Let’s look at some of the details beyond this 7.8% U-3 unemployment rate.

 

You’ll notice that I am referring to the U-3 unemployment rate. This is the official number used as our unemployment rate, but it does not take into account part-time workers who want full-time work and discouraged workers who’ve given up looking. If you actually count these people in order to calculate an unemployment rate, this is called the U-6 unemployment rate. For September, the U-6 unemployment rate is 14.7%. Interestingly enough, this number remains unchanged from the previous month.

 

The truth is that the 7.8% U-3 unemployment fell dramatically because of part-time hiring. In September, 582,000 part-time jobs were filled. That’s great for those people who are now earning a paycheck, but how many of those people were really looking for full-time work and are forced to settle for part-time instead? But this amazing jump in part-time hires is what some believe is the cause for such an astounding Household Survey report, which "added" 873,000 jobs … the biggest one-month increase in nearly 30 years. The last time a Household Survey showed a jump in the number of jobs like this, our economy was growing at a clip of 9.3%. We are currently growing at a measly rate of about 1.5%. Big difference. Economists characterize this current figure as ‘implausible … a statistical quirk.’

 

Then there’s the issue of the labor force participation rate. The good news is that it DID increase. But with that being said, it is still well below where it was when Obama took office. In fact, it is still down to 1981 levels! But as James Pethokoukis points out, if the labor force participation rate was the same as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.7%.

 

Politically, Obama and his propagandists are no doubt celebrating. But somebody should remind Dear Ruler that this 7.8% unemployment rate is considered a failure based on his own predictions and promises. When he shoved his economic stimulus plan down our throats, he and his economists predicted that our unemployment rate would be 5.6% in September 2012. We are two points above that prediction … and yet Obama’s policies are working? Yeah, right. And hilariously, Harry Reid Tweeted that our unemployment rate could be lower if it weren’t for Republican obstructionism in Congress. Yeah … because when Democrats were in control of the Congress and the presidency, their grand idea of a stimulus plan really turned things around!

 

Here’s the bottom line, from the Wall Street Journal: “Obama touted the latest jobs report and repeated his refrain that the economy has created five million jobs during this recovery. What he didn't say is that in a normal recovery we would have nearly twice that number, and that the economy is still about 4.5 million jobs short of where it was in 2007. He also didn't mention that those jobs aren't paying all that well because real median household income is down $3,040 since the recession ended in June 2009.”

 

And I’ll leave you with this … any guesses as to who said the following?

 

 

“… the unemployment rate has been low only because government programs, especially Social Security disability, have effectively been buying people off the unemployment rolls and reclassifying them as ‘not in the labor force.’ In other words, the government has cooked the books.”

 

It wasn’t Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. It wasn’t Newt Gingrich or Ann Coulter. Nope, this accusation of government “cooking the books” by dumping people onto the Social Security disability dole in order to lower the unemployment rate came from none other than … Austan Goolsbee, Obama economic advisor, in 2003. Meanwhile, under the guy that Goolsbee is currently advising, we are seeing a record number of Americans collecting Social Security disability. In fact, in the same month when our unemployment rate supposedly dropped to 7.8%, we saw a record number of people draw Social Security disability! From CNSNews: “The Social Security Administration has released new data revealing that 8,786,049 American workers are collecting federal disability insurance payments in September. That sets yet another record for the number of Americans on disability.” In fact, during the grand ObamaRecovery, we had one month (June 2012) where more people joined the Social Security disability dole than got new jobs! Cooking the books, Mr. Goolsbee?

 

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/oct/08/cooking-books/

[Recliner Pilot 61]

SHENANIGANS!

 

Jack Welch: I Was Right About That Strange Jobs Report

 

The economy would need to be growing at breakneck speed for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% in the course of two months.

 

 

 

Imagine a country where challenging the ruling authorities—questioning, say, a piece of data released by central headquarters—would result in mobs of administration sympathizers claiming you should feel "embarrassed" and labeling you a fool, or worse.

 

Soviet Russia perhaps? Communist China? Nope, that would be the United States right now, when a person (like me, for instance) suggests that a certain government datum (like the September unemployment rate of 7.8%) doesn't make sense.

 

Unfortunately for those who would like me to pipe down, the 7.8% unemployment figure released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last week is downright implausible. And that's why I made a stink about it.

 

Before I explain why the number is questionable, though, a few words about where I'm coming from. Contrary to some of the sound-and-fury last week, I do not work for the Mitt Romney campaign. I am definitely not a surrogate. My wife, Suzy, is not associated with the campaign, either. She worked at Bain Consulting (not Bain Capital) right after business school, in 1988 and 1989, and had no contact with Mr. Romney.

 

The Obama campaign and its supporters, including bigwigs like David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, along with several cable TV anchors, would like you to believe that BLS data are handled like the gold in Fort Knox, with gun-carrying guards watching their every move, and highly trained, white-gloved super-agents counting and recounting hourly.

 

Let's get real. The unemployment data reported each month are gathered over a one-week period by census workers, by phone in 70% of the cases, and the rest through home visits. In sum, they try to contact 60,000 households, asking a list of questions and recording the responses.

 

Some questions allow for unambiguous answers, but others less so. For instance, the range for part-time work falls between one hour and 34 hours a week. So, if an out-of-work accountant tells a census worker, "I got one baby-sitting job this week just to cover my kid's bus fare, but I haven't been able to find anything else," that could be recorded as being employed part-time.

 

The possibility of subjectivity creeping into the process is so pervasive that the BLS's own "Handbook of Methods" has a full page explaining the limitations of its data, including how non-sampling errors get made, from "misinterpretation of the questions" to "errors made in the estimations of missing data."

 

Bottom line: To suggest that the input to the BLS data-collection system is precise and bias-free is—well, let's just say, overstated.

 

Even if the BLS had a perfect process, the context surrounding the 7.8% figure still bears serious skepticism. Consider the following:

 

In August, the labor-force participation rate in the U.S. dropped to 63.5%, the lowest since September 1981. By definition, fewer people in the workforce leads to better unemployment numbers. That's why the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% in August from 8.3% in July.

 

Meanwhile, we're told in the BLS report that in the months of August and September, federal, state and local governments added 602,000 workers to their payrolls, the largest two-month increase in more than 20 years. And the BLS tells us that, overall, 873,000 workers were added in September, the largest one-month increase since 1983, during the booming Reagan recovery.

 

These three statistics—the labor-force participation rate, the growth in government workers, and overall job growth, all multidecade records achieved over the past two months—have to raise some eyebrows. There were no economists, liberal or conservative, predicting that unemployment in September would drop below 8%.

 

I know I'm not the only person hearing these numbers and saying, "Really? If all that's true, why are so many people I know still having such a hard time finding work? Why do I keep hearing about local, state and federal cutbacks?"

 

I sat through business reviews of a dozen companies last week as part of my work in the private sector, and not one reported better results in the third quarter compared with the second quarter. Several stayed about the same, the rest were down slightly.

 

The economy is not in a free-fall. Oil and gas are strong, automotive is doing well and we seem to be seeing the beginning of a housing comeback. But I doubt many of us know any businessperson who believes the economy is growing at breakneck speed, as it would have to be for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% over the course of two months.

 

The reality is the economy is experiencing a weak recovery. Everything points to that, particularly the overall employment level, which is 143 million people today, compared with 146 million people in 2007.

 

Now, I realize my tweets about this matter have been somewhat incendiary. In my first tweet, sent the night before the unemployment figure was released, I wrote: "Tomorrow unemployment numbers for Sept. with all the assumptions Labor Department can make..wonder about participation assumption??" The response was a big yawn.

 

My next tweet, on Oct. 5, the one that got the attention of the Obama campaign and its supporters, read: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers."

 

As I said that same evening in an interview on CNN, if I could write that tweet again, I would have added a few question marks at the end, as with my earlier tweet, to make it clear I was raising a question.

 

But I'm not sorry for the heated debate that ensued. I'm not the first person to question government numbers, and hopefully I won't be the last. Take, for example, one of my chief critics in this go-round, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the Obama administration's Council of Economic Advisers. Back in 2003, Mr. Goolsbee himself, commenting on a Bush-era unemployment figure, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: "the government has cooked the books."

 

The good news is that the current debate has resulted in people giving the whole issue of unemployment data more thought. Moreover, it led to some of the campaign's biggest supporters admitting that the number merited a closer look—and even expressing skepticism. The New York Times in a Sunday editorial, for instance, acknowledged the 7.8% figure is "partly due to a statistical fluke."

 

The coming election is too important to be decided on a number. Especially when that number seems so wrong.

 

Mr. Welch was the CEO of General Electric for 21 years and is the founder of the Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer University.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444897304578046260406091012.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[Vikings4ever 567]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/10/11/jobless-claims-data-skewed-downward/

 

A sharp drop in the number of weekly jobless claims filed last week was caused by the failure of one large state to report all of its claims, a Labor Department spokesman confirmed to FOX Business.

 

Initial jobless claims, which are a measure of the number of people recently laid off, fell by 30,000 to a seasonally adjusted 339,000, the lowest level in more than four years.

 

But the Labor Department spokesman said the numbers were skewed by one large state that underreported its data. The spokesman declined to identify the state, but economists believe California is the only state large enough to have such a significant impact on the overall numbers.

 

According to the spokesman, the reason that state’s claims numbers fell short was because the state left out a pile of unprocessed claims related to seasonal factors around the beginning of the fourth quarter, which began Oct. 1.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Gotta love the Govt giving us bogus numbers without California reporting in. No way that sh!thole's numbers would be detrimental to the overall numbers.

 

Nope, no shenanigans going on here.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Last month there were 145,000 jobs created and the unemployment rate dropped .1%.

 

This month 114,000 jobs were created and it dropped .3%.

 

Fewer jobs, yet 3X the drop.

 

Hmmm............

 

Looks like Hilda Solis is trying to keep her job for 4 more years if Obama wins.

Nailed it!

 

[Phurfur 70]

Census ‘faked’ 2012 election jobs report

 

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

 

http://nypost.com/20...on-jobs-report/

 

[edjr 6,684]

Tilt!

[Little Rusty 18]

Way to follow up a story

[KSB2424 3,148]

That's actually pretty disturbing if true.

[drobeski 3,061]

That's actually pretty disturbing if true.

Ohh im sure obama had nothing to did with it, he probably hasn't even heard about it yet.

[Phurfur 70]

That's actually pretty disturbing if true.

 

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Ohh im sure obama had nothing to did with it, he probably hasn't even heard about it yet.

Well, now that it's in the newspaper he will get right on it.

 

Those responsible will be held accountable!!!!! Just like that Benghazi youtube guy who is still in jail.

[KSB2424 3,148]

This is not quite Watergate but fudging gov't reports from the incumbent like this to gain favor in an election is pretty damning stuff. Who know's how high it went up but it does appear somebody pretty high up directed this to be done.

 

Forget all the window dressing nonsense we hear daily, this is a story that should be talked about, I don't care who you are or where you 'side' politically.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

This is not quite Watergate but fudging gov't reports from the incumbent like this to gain favor in an election is pretty damning stuff. Who know's how high it went up but it does appear somebody pretty high up directed this to be done.

 

Forget all the window dressing nonsense we hear daily, this is a story that should be talked about, I don't care who you are or where you 'side' politically.

Agreed. I hope they get to the bottom if this. I'm curious why we haven't heard more about it though. Yeah, yeah, yeah, "liberal media" and all that. But I'm wondering if this guy's story really holds up. It should certainly be looked into though.

[KSB2424 3,148]

Agreed. I hope they get to the bottom if this. I'm curious why we haven't heard more about it though. Yeah, yeah, yeah, "liberal media" and all that. But I'm wondering if this guy's story really holds up. It should certainly be looked into though.

 

Not sure, is it just rumor/fodder or does it have legs? The original story seems legit enough.......

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Agreed. I hope they get to the bottom if this. I'm curious why we haven't heard more about it though. Yeah, yeah, yeah, "liberal media" and all that. But I'm wondering if this guy's story really holds up. It should certainly be looked into though.

It was completely obvious the moment that number came out it was total BS and there were shenanigans going on.

 

Smart folks saw thru it.........you didn't.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

It was completely obvious the moment that number came out it was total BS and there were shenanigans going on.

 

Smart folks saw thru it.........you didn't.

Like I said, Congress and/or the media should get to the bottom of it. Surely you don't disagree with that?

 

You're such a focking doosh that even when someone essentially agrees with you you still have to fight 'em

[NewbieJr 541]

It was completely obvious the moment that number came out it was total BS and there were shenanigans going on.

 

Smart folks saw thru it.........you didn't.

Yeah but when those 'smart folks' (lolololol) see total BS and shenanigans in every single thing any Democrat ever does, no one listens or takes them seriously. One would think retards like them (aka YOU) would realize that.

 

Boy who cried wolf.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Like I said, Congress and/or the media should get to the bottom of it. Surely you don't disagree with that?

 

You're such a focking doosh that even when someone essentially agrees with you you still have to fight 'em

 

Just pointed out how you were touting these numbers while others, including me, were calling them BS. We were crazy then, but it looks like we will be vindicated in the end.

 

You are gullible and push anything coming from this administration no matter how outlandish it is. Call me a doosh all you want, but you are a hack of the highest degree and I enjoy exposing you as such.

[Phurfur 70]

Yeah but when those 'smart folks' (lolololol) see total BS and shenanigans in every single thing any Democrat ever does, no one listens or takes them seriously. One would think retards like them (aka YOU) would realize that.

 

Boy who cried wolf.

Please name something the Dems did in the last decade that wasn't total BS and shenanigans.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

7.8% would be good....even on the moon......if Obama had not already promised America his $800 BILLION stimulus would have unemployment below 6% right now.

This guy gets it.