Unemployment drops below 8 percent? Really?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/10/09 02:27:08
|
|
|||||
|
83 votes
|
|
64% | ||
|
33 votes
|
|
25% | ||
|
14 votes
|
|
11% | ||
Rush Limbaugh just happened to predict that the BLS would release just such a promising statistic.
And New Jersey's Dwight Kehoe presents ten inconvenient facts (inconvenient because we know them) that totally destroy the credibility of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Hel-lo-ooo? This is the Obama administration, need I remind you?
The key fact among the ten: over a million people have given up trying to find work. It is not there to be found. And the citizens are under no obligation to demonstrate futility to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
And then: turns out that the government has hired 600,000 more people. So that's why the government needs to expand its workforce: because absent that, those people would be out of work!
Bottom line: that statistic is bogus.
And New Jersey's Dwight Kehoe presents ten inconvenient facts (inconvenient because we know them) that totally destroy the credibility of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Hel-lo-ooo? This is the Obama administration, need I remind you?
The key fact among the ten: over a million people have given up trying to find work. It is not there to be found. And the citizens are under no obligation to demonstrate futility to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
And then: turns out that the government has hired 600,000 more people. So that's why the government needs to expand its workforce: because absent that, those people would be out of work!
Bottom line: that statistic is bogus.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/10/08...
Top Opinion
-
Rodney 2012/10/09 06:21:36Bogus! That statistic assumes over a million "unpersons."
+9Here's a couple they missed. The number of People of working age who are participating in the Labor Market only changed 1/10 of 1%, yet the unemployment changed 3/10ths of 1%? The U-6 Unemployment didn't change at all? They did a lousy job of covering their tracks.
So their fuzzy feel good numbers, are not a complete picture.
1. unemployment really went down
2. more people stop looking for work
3. a little of both
It IS, however, rather coincidental that JUST in time for re-election, these numbers drop below 8%, the lowest they've been in this man's Presidency.
--Sept. 2007 (right before the latest recession started): U-3: 4.7 percent; U-6: 8.4 percent; gap: 3.7 points.
--Sept. 2012 (the most recent numbers): U-3: 7.8 percent; U-6: 14.7 percent; gap: 6.9 points.
So while the basic jobless rate today is 3.1 points higher than it was five years ago, the broader U-6 rate is 6.3 points higher. That corroborates several trends for which there's already a lot of anecdotal evidence: A lot of part-time workers would prefer a full-time job, but can't find one. Companies are relying more on part-timers, freelancers and consultants than on permanent staffers with full benefits. And many people are working at lesser jobs for lower pay than they were before the recession.
The numbers are real. They are calculated the same way they have always been calculated.
Your hysteria is getting out of control.
Go watch a move or go to a sporting even. Get off the politics for a while.
Even the Wall Street Journal thinks Welch is a goof.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economic...
Joseph Stiglitz appeared on 'Up w/ Chris Hayes' to discuss the jobs report released on Friday. Several prominent conservative figures, including former GE CEO Jack Welch, have accused the Obama administration of skewing the numbers to appear in its favor.
"No president, maybe except Nixon, would actually try to change what the Bureau Labor Statistics does or what the DEA does. These are really independent agencies and the idea that they would do that is literally absurd," Stiglitz said.
Stiglitz said the only thing that presidents can do is explain the numbers and put them in context of larger economic tides.
"You don't monkey with the numbers because that would destroy your credibility," he said.
Friday's report showed that unemployment had fallen to 7.8% after 114,000 jobs were added last month.
Although some Republican politicians and conservative commentators have questioned the accuracy of the figures, officials deny any wrongdoing.
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told CNBC that it's "really ludicrous" to suggest that BLS manipulated the data.
"To think that these numbers could be manipulated ... It's impossible to do it a...
Even the Wall Street Journal thinks Welch is a goof.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economic...
Joseph Stiglitz appeared on 'Up w/ Chris Hayes' to discuss the jobs report released on Friday. Several prominent conservative figures, including former GE CEO Jack Welch, have accused the Obama administration of skewing the numbers to appear in its favor.
"No president, maybe except Nixon, would actually try to change what the Bureau Labor Statistics does or what the DEA does. These are really independent agencies and the idea that they would do that is literally absurd," Stiglitz said.
Stiglitz said the only thing that presidents can do is explain the numbers and put them in context of larger economic tides.
"You don't monkey with the numbers because that would destroy your credibility," he said.
Friday's report showed that unemployment had fallen to 7.8% after 114,000 jobs were added last month.
Although some Republican politicians and conservative commentators have questioned the accuracy of the figures, officials deny any wrongdoing.
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told CNBC that it's "really ludicrous" to suggest that BLS manipulated the data.
"To think that these numbers could be manipulated ... It's impossible to do it and get away with it," said Keith Hall, a former commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, according to the AP. "These numbers are very trustworthy.
Have you no faith in your fellow Americans?
Talking about a conspiracy theory concerning fudged bls numbers.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/...
And again. Stay on topic.
--Sept. 2002 (when the recovery from the 2001 recession was well underway): U-3: 5.7 percent; U-6: 9.6 percent; gap: 3.9 percentage points.
--Sept. 2007 (right before the latest recession started): U-3: 4.7 percent; U-6: 8.4 percent; gap: 3.7 points.
--Sept. 2012 (the most recent numbers): U-3: 7.8 percent; U-6: 14.7 percent; gap: 6.9 points.
So while the basic jobless rate today is 3.1 points higher than it was five years ago, the broader U-6 rate is 6.3 points higher. That corroborates several trends for which there's already a lot of anecdotal evidence: A lot of part-time workers would prefer a full-time job, but can't find one. Companies are relying more on part-timers, freelancers and consultants than on permanent staffers with full benefits. And many people are working at lesser jobs for lower pay than they were before the recession.
So if they were legit then, they are legit now.
The only conclusion we can reach about all the brouhaha over this, is that Right Wing Nut Jobs love to cry and whine and snivel . . .
. . . It's really pathetic, isn't it?