View Full Version : Anyone here skeptical of the unemployment numbers just released?
gimmethesimplelife
10-5-12, 6:00pm
Just curious.....Is anyone else here the slightest bit skeptical of the unemployment numbers released today? Please understand I like the current administration and hope for an Obama win, but aside from that, I'm not seeing the employment situation getting better for many here in Phoenix and the timing of the announcement of unemployment being under 8%? It sure seems like funky timing to me, at least on the surface.....Anyone care to comment? Rob
Obviously, the answer is that the employment situation is miraculously improving just in time for the election. They only seem strange because the 114K new jobs created in September are less than previous months increases which had little or no impact on the 8.x% rate at that time. I think it's important that the unemployment rate dip below 8% for at least one month during the President's first term. Ergo, it did.
gimmethesimplelife
10-5-12, 6:26pm
Obviously, the answer is that the employment situation is miraculously improving just in time for the election. They only seem strange because the 114K new jobs created in September are less than previous months increases which had little or no impact on the 8.x% rate at that time. I think it's important that the unemployment rate dip below 8% for at least one month during the President's first term. Ergo, it did.Alan, there is no sarcasm or snideness in this reply, just want to preface it with this.....do you really believe what you have said here? I mean the implications of it? I'm rather afraid as much as we have disagreed in the past that the timing of the numbers has me wondering if you are not in fact dead on.....Please understand that given that I continue to support the current administration, this is not an easy pill to swallow. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
10-5-12, 6:31pm
Well they don't include those who don't collect unemployment, so they don't include those who fell of the rolls due to their time expiring, those who quit and couldn't get other jobs, those who can't break into the labor market (new grads, mothers going back to work after taking time off for kids who can't get work etc.). Then well there's lots of analysis devoted to things like birth/death models and unemployment (stuff I don't fully understand but ... the birth and death are of companies not flesh people).
This is probably the most famous site:
http://www.shadowstats.com/
But I'm skeptical that extremist models like that site (yes we're in the Greater Depression, the Greatest Depression, yes we also see signs of hyperinflation, stagflation from heck, everybody run!), really make sense of our lives either. Because the story as experienced by any given individual is personal. Inflation IS personal rate of inflation. Unemployment is relative to the field you work in and location. And this is my personal experience: I think unemployment in my field, even around here, is fairly low (much much lower than any quoted general unemployment figures), recruiters call me on old resumes, there's interest and I'm not even putting in effort to job search, I see others in my field getting jobs, etc..
Now if you really want to talk about employment, the economy, suspicious stuff, and the Obama campaign. Quantitative Easing 3 went ahead, right in time for the election, of course it's suspicious as heck!!! And I don't say this because I'm convinced Romney would be better or that he wouldn't want QE as well. But a whole new round of QE (and not a huge amount, but WITHOUT ANY time limit) right in time for the election. The scary thing there is noone is sure they actually know how to unwind Quantitative Easing. How to stop QE without crashing the economy? Continuing it indefinitely may or may not lead to inflation (evidence now is the money is not being lent out so then it won't, but if it is).
I am always skeptical of any statistic, until I look carefully into the details.
Alan, there is no sarcasm or snideness in this reply, just want to preface it with this.....do you really believe what you have said here?
Yes, I do.
In order to get those numbers it was necessary to remove people from the job market and include part-time jobs reported under the Household Survey, disregarding the traditional Industrial Survey which is widely regarded as the most reliable indicator. The important thing to remember is that there is nothing to see here. How bout that American Idol?
ApatheticNoMore
10-5-12, 6:52pm
In order to get those numbers it was necessary to remove people from the job market and include part-time jobs reported under the Household Survey, disregarding the traditional Industrial Survey which is widely regarded as the most reliable indicator.
Ok the Household Survey may be less reliable but have they suddenly switched measures or have they always (or at least for the last decade or two) used the Household Survey? Because if they have always used that (including even in gasp previous administrations) then yes you are making up a story out of whole cloth here to suggest it's some kind of scandal, if the real story is just the shadow stat one that the numbers have been questionable for a long time (that's an old site, it wasn't created just to critique Obama). Two seperate questions here: 1) is unemployment higher than the official figures 2) is unemployment dropping. I don't think you can call #2 on one month of data.
3/10th of a percent is not that impressive a drop. 3%, I'd be impressed with but not .3. Rate is still pretty high.
The thing that really bothers me is that so many people (led by Jack Welch, former CEO of GE) are willing to shoot from the hip and cry foul play, no wait, even worse--corruption with absolutely no evidence to support such a vile, salacious and slanderous claim and to do so only 5 short minutes after the release of the report.
If I did think there was something not quite right about a report from an independent agency within the Administration, I'd actually stop, think about it a little and then gather a hell of a lot of evidence before I opened my big mouth and vomited whatever impression came to mind. I'd do this because I know that usually when I react and vomit whatever noise comes to mind without even considering filtering what I say, I usually end up looking pretty stupid and I actually value my reputation. Obviously, Jack Welch and his ilk are not of the same mind as I. Pretty boorish.
ApatheticNoMore
10-5-12, 7:14pm
Anyone who knows this report is fraud right away, well even if they are right, what are they propped in to a continuous direct feed of talking points? Talking points IV. We get talking points from the news to your brain the fastest!!!
As for my comments, they were based on general understanding of how unemployment is calculated (and thus why it ALWAYS leaves out some people, it's not NEW information) and general discussions I have read of the effects of people falling off the unemployment rolls on the unemployment rate (good grief the paper paper, every month it runs an report about unemployment and almost always discusses workers added and those who fallen off the roles, and how this months dip might be more due to workers falling off the roles than a real change in unemployment. Nearly every single month ...). Plus other discussions I have read about the problems with the calculations to begin with, always something mysterious or other is attributed to the birth/death model (which I guess I will have to actually learn about now I guess).
I don't think you can call #2 on one month of data.
Does anyone here even know what the properties of the underlying datasets look like?
I admit to not having a clue myself(*). For all I know, a .3% reduction could be within the range attributable to chance, or it could be significant to 99.9999%.
(*) Because of what I see as grand flaws in the overall classification scheme the unemployment figures are based on, the official single number is of little interest to me.
Ok the Household Survey may be less reliable but have they suddenly switched measures or have they always (or at least for the last decade or two) used the Household Survey? Because if they have always used that (including even in gasp previous administrations) then yes you are making up a story out of whole cloth here to suggest it's some kind of scandal, if the real story is just the shadow stat one that the numbers have been questionable for a long time (that's an old site, it wasn't created just to critique Obama). Two seperate questions here: 1) is unemployment higher than the official figures 2) is unemployment dropping. I don't think you can call #2 on one month of data.I'm not sure how this month's figures were weighted. I just find it suspicious that throughout 2012 the employment rolls have increased by an average of 139K per month resulting in very minor variations in the 8.x% U3 unemployment rate. Yet September's increase of 114K resulted in the largest monthly decrease in unemployment for the year. In my mind, this could only be accomplished by weighting any part-time employment increases in the relatively small Household Survey in such a way as to have a disproportionate effect on the result.
I believe that the rate of new workers entering the market (those reaching employment age) is currently increasing at a rate of approximately 150K per month. This doesn't jibe with the monthly new employment numbers we've seen over the past 4 years, which makes the persistent 8% numbers suspect, with the current month's rate an extreme outlier.
Perhaps you could make your own assumptions. Here's an interesting place to start. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/what-to-look-for-in-fridays-jobs-report-2/
..., with the current month's rate an extreme outlier.
As it happens, I have a degree in Statistics, and one of my interests was exploratory data analysis/non-parametric stats/robust methods, under John Tukey.
And with that, I'll just say that examining outliers is often a quite productive hobby...
The White House would never try to sway the unemployment figures would they?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/at-white-house-request-lockheed-martin-drops-plan-to-issue-layoff-notices/
The White House would never try to sway the unemployment figures would they?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/at-white-house-request-lockheed-martin-drops-plan-to-issue-layoff-notices/ I've wondered over the past few days if anyone would bring that up. The administration's offer to pay the legal expenses of any defense contractor violating the WARN Act seems a little strange, doesn't it?
Why didn't you doubt the numbers when they were bad Alan? As said before it is really only .3 %. What makes it look good is unemployment is under 8% by .2 of a percent. Big deal. Plus the report it's self says it is not accurate by restating a number of prior months. As I recall this happens often with this report.
The sky if falling.
ApatheticNoMore
10-5-12, 8:37pm
Well it seems to me that Lockhead is also blackmailing, its threats to lay off workers are lest any of it's largess be cut. It's also playing a very very dirty game. So yea Lockhead comes across looking working worse than Obama here, but then again what does one expect of a death merchant anyway .... morals?
"We remain firm in our conviction that the automatic and across-the-board budget reductions under sequestration are ineffective and inefficient public policy that will weaken our civil government operations, damage our national security, and adversely impact our industry" [that industry being killing people]. "We will continue to work with leaders in our government to stop sequestration and find more thoughtful, balanced, and effective solutions to our nation’s challenges,” Lockheed said.
Ugh, what a disgusting quote
My God how did Mitt get gas prices to go up to $6 dollars a gallon in California in 2 days after the debate. He must have friends in big oil.
This will hurt Obama won't it allan.
My God how did Mitt get gas prices to go up to $6 dollars a gallon in California in 2 days after the debate. He must have friends in big oil.
This will hurt Obama won't it allan.
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Can you elaborate?
Look at the news it is on all of the shows. They would you believe the reason for the fast jump in gas prices is the economy is growing. Here is a link alan for the story on it. http://www.kcra.com/
I was kidding Alan to make a point about the rumors about the unemployment report.
Look at the news it is on all of the shows. They would you believe the reason for the fast jump in gas prices is the economy is growing. Here is a link alan for the story on it. http://www.kcra.com/
I don't understand. The story at your link says California's current high gas prices are a result of problems with refineries in the state. What does that have to do with Romney or economic growth?
I was kidding Alan to make a point about the rumors about the unemployment report. Oh! But I'm still confused, what rumors are you talking about? Do you mean the non-partisan speculation that there's something odd about them?
Just curious.....Is anyone else here the slightest bit skeptical of the unemployment numbers released today? Please understand I like the current administration and hope for an Obama win, but aside from that, I'm not seeing the employment situation getting better for many here in Phoenix and the timing of the announcement of unemployment being under 8%? It sure seems like funky timing to me, at least on the surface.....Anyone care to comment? Rob
It depends on where you are - in MA, unemployment has been 6.x% percent for a while - if some places are under the national average, some places have to be over.
I don't understand. The story at your link says California's current high gas prices are a result of problems with refineries in the state. What does that have to do with Romney or economic growth? Oh! But I'm still confused, what rumors are you talking about? Do you mean the non-partisan speculation that there's something odd about them?
Non partisan? Jack Welch? Fox News? Alan/bae/dmc?
:laff::laff::laff::laff::laff::laff::laff::laff::l aff::laff:
Non partisan? Jack Welch? Fox News? Alan/bae/dmc?
:laff::laff::laff::laff::laff::laff::laff::laff::l aff::laff:
gimmethesimplelife?
Non partisan? Jack Welch? Fox News? Alan/bae/dmc?
:laff::laff::laff::laff::laff::laff::laff::laff::l aff::laff:
Excuse me, Oh Duplicitious One. I am neutral when it comes to data, thank you very much. I'm on my own side, and not one of your, or anyone else's partisans.
I merely observed I don't trust anyone's statistics until I look at them myself, and mentioned why, and gave some of my qualifications for believing so. I still have the key to my office in Fine Tower, next to J. Tukey's, and have been a member of the ASA for 25+ years now.
iris lily
10-6-12, 12:08am
DH called me this morning to say "Obama has the election sewn up" when he heard the loudly trumpeted improvement in joblessness rate. We've been comparing notes on mainstream media's drumbeat of economic improvement in this, the countdown to the Presidential election. Every couple of days, it is "good news" (but how that's deficit working for you Barack?)
The loud promotion of news that teenage motherhood is at an all time low ( I posted an article about it on another thread) is part of the MSM show. This teenage mom study was release way last February. I heard about it on two MSM outlet this week, 8 months after the fact. MSM is scrambling to get positive news out there, and this sociology study will make people happy.
The charges that the Labor Dept. fixed the numbers was addressed on NPR national news today. The individual interviewed said that the people analyzing the data are such data geeks that they'd bust anyone with partisan politics. They stand behind their analysis.
Personally, I find it the height of conspiracy theories to think that these numbers are faked, as well as insulting to the federal employees who work hard to analyze the data. And I do not believe in conspiracy theories.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/10/05/162357698/labor-secretary-says-talk-of-fudged-jobless-numbers-is-insulting
The news that the nation's jobless rate fell to 7.8 percent in September from 8.1 percent in August (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/10/05/162352854/unemployment-rate-drops-to-7-8-percent-114-000-jobs-added-to-payrolls) immediately led some of President Obama's critics to charge the the books had been cooked to help his reelection campaign.
"Unbelievable jobs numbers," tweeted former General Electric CEO Jack Welch (https://twitter.com/jack_welch/status/254198154260525057). "These Chicago guys [the Obama campaign] will do anything ... can't debate so change numbers."
On CNBC, Tea Party favorite Rick Santelli (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/09/20/129993339/obama-tells-rick-santelli-he-feels-his-pain) declared that "I told you they'd get it under 8 percent — they did! (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2012/10/05/santelli-smells-rat-i-told-you-theyd-get-it-under-8-they-did)"
Conservative commentator Monica Crowley tweeted about (https://twitter.com/MonicaCrowley/status/254211434026790912) an "October surprise: 43 consecutive months of above 8% unemployment, & 1 month before election, the rate miraculously drops to 7.8%. Ahem."
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis has had a chance to respond to such talk: "I'm insulted when I hear that, because we have a very professional civil service," she said on CNBC. "I have the highest regard for our professionals that do the calculations at the (Bureau of Labor Statistics). They are trained economists."
At another point she called the charges "ludicrous."
Our colleagues at Planet Money have previously reported (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/03/157859194/keeping-the-biggest-secret-in-the-u-s-economy) about the lengths BLS goes to in an effort to keep its work secret and away from outside influence.
This isn't the last jobs report before the Nov. 6 election. October's figures are due on Nov. 2 (http://www.bls.gov/schedule/news_release/201211_sched.htm). Watch for more fireworks then.
This recent podcast from Planet Money goes into some depth in examining the security measures that exist to ensure the integrity of the jobs figures and prevent them from being released early. I would imagine that any monkeying with the data would be trackable (and tracked):
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/03/158090937/episode-392-keeping-the-biggest-secret-in-the-u-s-economy
lhamo
(This is linked in in the snippet redfox posted above, but thought worth pointing out separately).
The Storyteller
10-6-12, 7:29am
I wanna see that birth certificate.
Just curious.....Is anyone else here the slightest bit skeptical of the unemployment numbers released today? Please understand I like the current administration and hope for an Obama win, but aside from that, I'm not seeing the employment situation getting better for many here in Phoenix and the timing of the announcement of unemployment being under 8%? It sure seems like funky timing to me, at least on the surface.....Anyone care to comment? Rob
we are seeing many more jobs being advertised, especially in the Chattanooga area. Not great jobs, but jobs. I don't think anyone likes taking a position thay pays less than they had before or going without benefits. But, still there are more jobs than a year ago.
we are seeing many more jobs being advertised, especially in the Chattanooga area. Not great jobs, but jobs. I don't think anyone likes taking a position thay pays less than they had before or going without benefits. But, still there are more jobs than a year ago.
Maybe that explains the 8% drop in household income since Obama took office. Way to go Barry, it only took you 44 months to get those job numbers slightly below 8%. Even after spending trillions and driving the debt up.
DH called me this morning to say "Obama has the election sewn up" when he heard the loudly trumpeted improvement in joblessness rate. We've been comparing notes on mainstream media's drumbeat of economic improvement in this, the countdown to the Presidential election. Every couple of days, it is "good news" (but how that's deficit working for you Barack?)
The loud promotion of news that teenage motherhood is at an all time low ( I posted an article about it on another thread) is part of the MSM show. This teenage mom study was release way last February. I heard about it on two MSM outlet this week, 8 months after the fact. MSM is scrambling to get positive news out there, and this sociology study will make people happy.
Not much talk about the loss of household income, higher insurance cost, more on food stamps, the increase of people signing up for disability from SS, and the debt that is unsubstainable. Nope, happy day's are here.
I would imagine that toying with employment data by the Obama staff, if discovered, could pretty much end his career in politics. But regardless, one data point does not a trend make. The fact is that we suffered through a major recession and recovery has been very slow. I would actually be more interested in a number that includes those who are long term unemployed and have stopped looking for work. And as a more abstract number, skilled people who have taken low paying jobs in the food and health service industry.
Fact is we missed having a depression by a hair. Whether Obama saved us by pulling us from the brink of disaster, or whether he has been ineffective in a faster recovery is not going to be answered by a single employment figure.
gimmethesimplelife
10-6-12, 9:50am
I would imagine that toying with employment data by the Obama staff, if discovered, could pretty much end his career in politics. But regardless, one data point does not a trend make. The fact is that we suffered through a major recession and recovery has been very slow. I would actually be more interested in a number that includes those who are long term unemployed and have stopped looking for work. And as a more abstract number, skilled people who have taken low paying jobs in the food and health service industry.
Fact is we missed having a depression by a hair. Whether Obama saved us by pulling us from the brink of disaster, or whether he has been ineffective in a faster recovery is not going to be answered by a single employment figure.I think you are right - toying with the numbers, if discovered, would end Obama's career in politics, and now that I think about it, there are probably some kind of safeguards in place to ensure accuracy of the information. There seems to be some question as to what information gets included and what does not BUT I remember complaints of this when I graduated college into the recession of 1990 - 1991. I also think you are right that we missed a depression by a hair, and I personally am glad it was Obama at the Helm and not McCain.....imagine the more widespread suffering without unemployment insurance extensions and that I've got mine, you go starve kind of mentality from the what I call the hardcore right - though I will say not each and every person on the right is like that, I have certainly met some who are not. At any rate, great post! Rob
gimmethesimplelife
10-6-12, 9:52am
This recent podcast from Planet Money goes into some depth in examining the security measures that exist to ensure the integrity of the jobs figures and prevent them from being released early. I would imagine that any monkeying with the data would be trackable (and tracked):
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/03/158090937/episode-392-keeping-the-biggest-secret-in-the-u-s-economy
lhamo
(This is linked in in the snippet redfox posted above, but thought worth pointing out separately).Thanks Llamo! Rob
gimmethesimplelife
10-6-12, 9:58am
Maybe that explains the 8% drop in household income since Obama took office. Way to go Barry, it only took you 44 months to get those job numbers slightly below 8%. Even after spending trillions and driving the debt up.I won't deny you have a point about household income for the majority dropping, I know mine sure has. I would even venture to guess that with so many jobs offshored so that the upper strata can make money, there will probably be more drops coming, and that who gets into office does not matter, it's going to happen anyhow the way things are set up now. My question however is about the debt being driven up by all the Obama government spending - was there any alternative to avoid a depression? Honestly? If you have a way around that one that does not involve large amounts of spending, I'm all ears......Seriously. I would rather the debt be much less myself. Rob
I won't deny you have a point about household income for the majority dropping, I know mine sure has. I would even venture to guess that with so many jobs offshored so that the upper strata can make money, there will probably be more drops coming, and that who gets into office does not matter, it's going to happen anyhow the way things are set up now. My question however is about the debt being driven up by all the Obama government spending - was there any alternative to avoid a depression? Honestly? If you have a way around that one that does not involve large amounts of spending, I'm all ears......Seriously. I would rather the debt be much less myself. Rob
I think we went over the fiscal cliff a while back, we're just in free fall waiting for the crash. Balance the budget - imagine removing a trillion dollars from the economy in one year. I really think we've hit a point where we can't go back without "breaking" the system.
ApatheticNoMore
10-6-12, 12:42pm
They should probably just let the fiscal cliff hit. As far as deficit reduction measures go it's ... fair and balanced? Really though it requires cuts to both defense and social program AND tax hikes. It is a far more balanced measure than you are going to get from most politicians after they've sold you down the river (and they will). And it doesn't much touch Social Security.
Thus any agreement worked out by politicians is likely to be *WORSE* than the fiscal cliff. Any agreement probably won't touch defense (you might upset Lockhead! You see how much they dislike that). Any agreement worked out by politicians probably WILL go after Social Security. And they probably won't be able to raise any taxes. We will be sold an EVEN WORSE plan out of fear of the fiscal cliff.
Of course the whole fiscal cliff is unnecessary in the first place, of course why are we cutting social programs when we're still drone bombing and in declared wars with half the world - if we're broke shouldn't we pull out of the empire business, of course why were additional silly tax measures only recently passed when they are only making things worse (the payroll tax cut). Still that doesn't mean if we have to drink poison that the fiscal cliff measures aren't far preferably than the "compromises" (ie everything their donors want, nothing for the majority, all the time) the politicians will give us.
A Bunch Of Very Sensible Stuff.
Indeed so!
The decrease in wages may be caused by market forces. Supply and demand. With the number of unemployed employers can pay almost what they want. As the unemployed decreases the rate of pay will go up or should go up.
The decrease in wages may be caused by market forces. Supply and demand. With the number of unemployed employers can pay almost what they want. As the unemployed decreases the rate of pay will go up or should go up.
Given how many nations around the world are busily developing their economies these days, given how many educated willing workers they have that now directly compete with our workers, given how easy it is to move goods and capital around the world, why exactly do we expect USA unemployment to go down? Supply-and-demand, as you say.
I suspect quite a few of the "lost" jobs don't exist anymore in this country, and never will again.
So if you were keen on lifelong career in buggy-whip manufacturing, it might be time for some rethinking.
Personally, I think the best way out of this mess is to pay a lot more attention to our basic infrastructure, so our citizens can create jobs for today's world: education, transportation, communication, ... Maybe one of the Presidential candidates would be so bold as to offer up a way of doing that, perhaps by cutting 1/2 the military budget and spending it on schools, roads, railways, ports, telecommunications, hospitals, energy production, ...
I have a dream.
So, basically what the republicans are crying about is, despite their very best efforts to tank the economy, it still is actually improving, bit by bit.
You know, given their constant declarations about 'concern' for the economy, you'd think even one republican would be happy for some positive news. Instead they insult and defame the Bureau of Labor statistics, and piss and moan about even this small gain.
Yeah, Obama managed to fiddle with this firewalled institution, but Romney-bot didn't cheat on his taxes? Now which is more likely?
I think it's pretty slimy that republicans, who absolutely know better, would defame and insult this non-partisan institution to manipulate their low information voters by planting this absurd idea in their heads.
You know what, adversity doesn't build character, it reveals it. And this election cycle, or even the last 4 years, has revealed the republican character to be void of honesty, integrity, or anything even approaching concern for their fellow Americans. It's a slash and burn mentality, and they don't care who gets crushed as long as they win.
http://bunkblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/slobbery-dog.jpg
That dog won't hunt.
You're right bae, that conspiracy 'dog' won't hunt! But that isn't going to stop some from trying. Apparently everything this man does, including being born, is a liberal conspiracy!
Peggy, I think most people (regardless of their political leaning) are reasonable. I think that when Republicans spout the birther crap (yes, this is a variation on that theme--another corrupt conspiracy) most people who hear it just kind of shake their heads.
It depends on what the agenda is for the Republicans. If they want to convince middle of the road independents, their intended audience probably thinks it sounds desperate and absurd. But if their agenda is to throw out some red meat for the base--then this strategy is perfect.
The Storyteller
10-6-12, 9:13pm
Given how many nations around the world are busily developing their economies these days, given how many educated willing workers they have that now directly compete with our workers, given how easy it is to move goods and capital around the world, why exactly do we expect USA unemployment to go down? Supply-and-demand, as you say.
I suspect quite a few of the "lost" jobs don't exist anymore in this country, and never will again.
So if you were keen on lifelong career in buggy-whip manufacturing, it might be time for some rethinking.
Personally, I think the best way out of this mess is to pay a lot more attention to our basic infrastructure, so our citizens can create jobs for today's world: education, transportation, communication, ... Maybe one of the Presidential candidates would be so bold as to offer up a way of doing that, perhaps by cutting 1/2 the military budget and spending it on schools, roads, railways, ports, telecommunications, hospitals, energy production, ...
I have a dream.
Commie.
I wanna see that birth certificate.
My friend shouted at the beginning of the debate "Forget the birth certificate, we wanna see that marriage license!!!" when they were making reference to the Obama's wedding anniversary. I thought that was funny.
Unemployment numbers always drop a bit this time of year due to seasonal hiring.
Peggy, I think most people (regardless of their political leaning) are reasonable. I think that when Republicans spout the birther crap (yes, this is a variation on that theme--another corrupt conspiracy) most people who hear it just kind of shake their heads.
It depends on what the agenda is for the Republicans. If they want to convince middle of the road independents, their intended audience probably thinks it sounds desperate and absurd. But if their agenda is to throw out some red meat for the base--then this strategy is perfect.
Oh I agree that most people are not only reasonable, but solidly middle of the road, politically. But I can only answer to the voices i hear right now. The reasonable, middle of the road republicans are remarkably quiet about all these shenanigans. Voter ID laws (voter suppression), birtherism, truthism, the war on women's rights, the lies, Romney's tax cheating, his lies, his flip flopping, his total lack of conviction, on anything! and now this. The problem is, too many people have absolutely no clue how these things work, and don't realize how ludicrous it is to accuse the BLS of 'cooking the books' to favor a politician. they just hear their congressman say how 'suspicious' it is, and suggest that the President of the United States, as well as the BLS somehow faked these numbers.
This is how manipulation works. It isn't a literal gun to the head, but planted ideas and suggestions to grow that little kernel of doubt. Think about it. Even here people are 'questioning' seriously this conspiracy theory. I mean really! Are we to consider seriously every bit of conspiracy diarrhea that dribbles out of Glen Beck's mouth? Does every nut now have equal credibility? There was a time when we all recognized nut jobs and nut job theories (which have always been with us) and dismissed them for what they were.
This is the only voice I can speak to because these are the only ones talking (shouting).
The decrease in wages may be caused by market forces. Supply and demand. With the number of unemployed employers can pay almost what they want. As the unemployed decreases the rate of pay will go up or should go up.
I doubt it - it's a world economy, now. Maybe that will apply when wages are low enough that Foxconn would find it economically advantageous to open factories here, but we have long way to go before we're there. Although by then I don't know who's going to able to afford to buy all this stuff.
ApatheticNoMore
10-7-12, 3:07pm
A true peak oil scenario would force relocalization also since the cost of shipping everything everywhere would just be too high, but I'm not holding my breath, they'll deplete ever bit of the tarsands and fry the planet before then probably. Still cheap transportation is subsidized.
Unemployment numbers always drop a bit this time of year due to seasonal hiring.
Ya' beat me to it artist. +1
Unemployment numbers always drop a bit this time of year due to seasonal hiring.
Ya' beat me to it artist. +1
This must be building up to a helluva season. The 873,000 new workers counted in the household survey is the largest single month increase in 29 years.
If my land line is any indication Gallup hired most of them.
Speaking of Gallup, their chief economist says that the big drop in the unemployment rate "should be discounted". http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/why-gallups-chief-economist-says-the-big-drop-in-the-unemployment-rate-should-be-discounted/
The problem is that even though the Household survey tends to be very volatile, this decline seems to lack face-validity, particularly after the prior month’s numbers. The consensus estimate was that the government would report that the unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.1% in September. GDP growth was 1.3% in the second quarter and seems to be no better this quarter. The government’s Establishment survey shows there were 114,000 new jobs created in September — very close to the consensus of 113,000 — and not sufficient to lower the unemployment rate.
A quick comparison of the government’s seasonally adjusted and unadjusted employment data seems hard to reconcile with the weak economy. For example, the government shows the number of employed workers increasing by 775,000 in September from August on an unadjusted basis. This surge in hiring seems surprisingly large given the current economy, not to mention the even larger adjusted increase of 873,000. Similarly, the number of unemployed declined by 954,000 in September on an unadjusted basis. This is reduced to a smaller adjusted decline of 456,000 — but both numbers are also surprisingly large.
Ya' beat me to it artist. +1
I believe the unemployment rates are seasonally adjusted.
Speaking of Gallup, their chief economist says that the big drop in the unemployment rate "should be discounted". http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/why-gallups-chief-economist-says-the-big-drop-in-the-unemployment-rate-should-be-discounted/
I also agree they should be discounted or viewed with some skepticism but NOT because there is some grand conspiracy to cook the books.
Just curious.....Is anyone else here the slightest bit skeptical of the unemployment numbers released today? Please understand I like the current administration and hope for an Obama win, but aside from that, I'm not seeing the employment situation getting better for many here in Phoenix and the timing of the announcement of unemployment being under 8%? It sure seems like funky timing to me, at least on the surface.....Anyone care to comment? Rob
Obviously, the answer is that the employment situation is miraculously improving just in time for the election. They only seem strange because the 114K new jobs created in September are less than previous months increases which had little or no impact on the 8.x% rate at that time. I think it's important that the unemployment rate dip below 8% for at least one month during the President's first term. Ergo, it did.
Alan, there is no sarcasm or snideness in this reply, just want to preface it with this.....do you really believe what you have said here? I mean the implications of it? I'm rather afraid as much as we have disagreed in the past that the timing of the numbers has me wondering if you are not in fact dead on.....Please understand that given that I continue to support the current administration, this is not an easy pill to swallow. Rob
I know it's been over a year since this exchange, but sometimes it takes a while for the truth to come out. http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/
gimmethesimplelife
11-19-13, 1:44pm
I know it's been over a year since this exchange, but sometimes it takes a while for the truth to come out. http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/This is a hard pill to swallow as I posted back in 2012.....But it did seem to me that the drop in unemployed by that much at that time seemed a little too good to be true. I'm not especially thrilled to date with Obama's second term but as one of the winners of the ACA - and with most people I know IRL being winners of the ACA - I still support Obama BUT I'm starting to understand some of the criticism about him.....I don't care for his bungled promise of if you like your insurance you can keep it and I also don't like the stark divisions of who gets subsidies and who doesn't as per income. It's hard not to like Obama if you are in my social class or if you have enough time in it due to fear of America. But once again, I am starting to see some ineptitude and I would agree that the Health Exchange rollout for those not getting covered by Medicaid has been a disaster..... Rob PS As far the unemployment numbers go Alan, I suspected something along the lines of this article all along, though.
... I'm not especially thrilled to date with Obama's second term but as one of the winners of the ACA - and with most people I know IRL being winners of the ACA - I still support Obama BUT I'm starting to understand some of the criticism about him.....I don't care for his bungled promise of if you like your insurance you can keep it ...
I help run our local water system, which serves ~1200 households. We don't have enough staff to be forced to provide healthcare. We are a member-owned cooperative, we don't have profit. We have never had enough money to buy, with our small number of employees, any group policy for our highly-valued employees.
So what we've always done is provided a decent lump-sum of $$$ as part of their benefits, which they could use to purchase whatever insurance they found prudent and available.
I was informed by our manager last night that almost every single employee has had their plans cancelled as the result of the current healthcare ruckus, the new plans they are offered are quite a bit more expensive (if they can manage to purchase one), and the employees are now confused and fearful. To the point where we are having to fly out some "experts" to help sort things out.
Madness.
I'm glad you won, Rob. These hard-working men and women who provide safe drinking water to our community lost.
... It's hard not to like Obama if you are in my social class or if you have enough time in it due to fear of America. But once again, I am starting to see some ineptitude and I would agree that the Health Exchange rollout for those not getting covered by Medicaid has been a disaster..... Rob PS As far the unemployment numbers go Alan, I suspected something along the lines of this article all along, though.
Well, I guess the important thing to remember is that the ends always justify the means.
Well, I guess the important thing to remember is that the ends always justify the means.
The bold thrust of history will not be denied, Alan, and if a few sacrifices have to be made along the way, just remember, the bright shiny new future justifies all!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b0lFOIHtF7k/TtP6qTAHMUI/AAAAAAAAAFs/JrGOcFqrEzU/s1600/eloi.jpg
Well, I guess the important thing to remember is that the ends always justify the means.
As Cheney has said before:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/new-gop-meme-ends-justify_b_190311.html
As Cheney has said before:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/new-gop-meme-ends-justify_b_190311.html
LOL, that's a great diversion from the way back machine. Thanks!
As long as we're travelling with Mr Peabody, let's go back to the period where this thread began. Do you think the Presidential election may have had a different outcome if the populace knew that economic/employment data were being falsified, that the ACA was sold on a series of mis-representations, that the power of the IRS was being used to diminish political outreach, with each travesty of transparency designed as political advantage for the present administration.
Would any of that have made a difference? Just curious..
Bae, off-topic, but your local water company is private? Ours is a town department, but serves other towns as well. We have nine wells now. Everyone pays the same rate, regardless of the town they live in. Since the employees are town employees, they're covered by the same health plan that all the town employees are covered by.
ApatheticNoMore
11-19-13, 10:45pm
Do you think the Presidential election may have had a different outcome if the populace knew that economic/employment data were being falsified, that the ACA was sold on a series of mis-representations,
no both candidates would have still sucked (and Obama not the only one that looks poorer in hindsight). Oh of course you mean whether the 3rd party vote would have been higher or if more people would have just not voted in disgust? While I'd like to think that, and maybe for the latter, for the former alas probably not. Besides that while almost noone has the unemployment rate memorized (who but an unemployed person would, and they'd try to forget it!), everyone already knows the economy sucks, and has since 2008, we know that from labor participation rates not unemployment rates (not to mention poverty rates). Everybody knows that QE and so on didn't mostly do much for the average person.
Bae, off-topic, but your local water company is private?
Ours is a member-owned system. Our village, which is the primary service area for this system, is not an incorporated entity, there is no formal "town" for the system to belong to. It is a pretty large operation, with treatment facilities, reservoirs, well fields, and so on. We also provide the fire hydrant system for the village.
Our electrical system is member owned as well. In a way its unfortunate. The members consistently vote for the cheapest form of power generation to keep rates low (shock and awe). Here in Nebraska that is coal from Wyoming. No solar, only so much wind as the Feds would subsidize, etc. The monthly bill is easy to take, but at what price?
... economic/employment data were being falsified ...
I know mentioning Bush/Cheney is a sore point. But, ginning up more pseudo-scandals to deflect from that isn't gonna work:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/unemployment-rate-faked_n_4302907.html
and from Politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/20/elisabeth-hasselbeck/elisabeth-hasselbeck-suggests-census-worker-admits/
I know mentioning Bush/Cheney is a sore point.
Nope, not a sore point at all, just amusingly off topic.
But, ginning up more pseudo-scandals to deflect from that isn't gonna work:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/unemployment-rate-faked_n_4302907.html
and from Politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/20/elisabeth-hasselbeck/elisabeth-hasselbeck-suggests-census-worker-admits/
I don't know if its a "pseudo-scandal" or not. The numbers reported were questioned by a wide variety of sources at the time, there are reports of number fudging within the census bureau going back to 2010, the household survey conducted by the census bureau for the period just prior to the election reported the largest monthly increase in workers in 30 years, and the census bureau's reporting structure was changed from the Commerce Department to the White House during the first few weeks of the administrations first term resulting in a politicized organization.
You're probably right, nothing to see here, let's move on.
Jeez. Ok, Bush/Cheney was the most corrupt, evil, mind numbingly deceptive administration in human history. Granted already. All I want to know is, deep in the 5th year, will the current administration (or probably more accurately their followers) accept that the ball has finally been passed to them? History is wonderful if we are able to learn from it. Can we? Or should we just keep our eyes on firmly focused in the rear view mirror while we are careening over a cliff?
iris lilies
11-21-13, 1:28am
Jeez. Ok, Bush/Cheney was the most corrupt, evil, mind numbingly deceptive administration in human history. Granted already. All I want to know is, deep in the 5th year, will the current administration (or probably more accurately their followers) accept that the ball has finally been passed to them? History is wonderful if we are able to learn from it. Can we? Or should we just keep our eyes on firmly focused in the rear view mirror while we are careening over a cliff?
Channeling PDQ: "George Bush isn't the President now. Try to get over it."
Sure, as another poster said, we'll be able to put the Bush/Cheney administration in the historical dustbin as soon as the debts they ran up are paid off by taxpayers. Any guess on when that will be?
But in the meantime the public is numb to yet another phony "scandal."
ApatheticNoMore
11-21-13, 12:34pm
Sure, as another poster said, we'll be able to put the Bush/Cheney administration in the historical dustbin as soon as the debts they ran up are paid off by taxpayers. Any guess on when that will be?
no and not sure it even matters, debts are never paid off. However there is the problem of interest, and that debts are used as an *excuse* to cut social programs. I don't expect the debt to be paid off any more than I expect 1/2 a million dead Iraqis to be raised from the dead by a new President (rather more important than non real money anyway) or for me to be 8 years younger to get back the bush years :laff: I would have settled for a reversal of Bushes *policies* but of course that's not going to happen because Demopublicans.
But in the meantime the public is numb to yet another phony "scandal."
More like unemployment rate up or down a percentage, the economy sucking is not lost on them because they actually live it. Ahem, labor force participation rates ...
Sure, as another poster said, we'll be able to put the Bush/Cheney administration in the historical dustbin as soon as the debts they ran up are paid off by taxpayers. Any guess on when that will be?
So by that logic this is all Martin Van Buren's fault? Andrew Jackson was the last President to pay off the debt then Van Buren started running it back up and it's never been cleared out since. Somehow, in all the years between 1835 and now, other Presidents have been able to take ownership of inherited issues and start moving forward. Why should we give this administration a pass when no one else got one?
So by that logic this is all Martin Van Buren's fault? Andrew Jackson was the last President to pay off the debt then Van Buren started running it back up and it's never been cleared out since. Somehow, in all the years between 1835 and now, other Presidents have been able to take ownership of inherited issues and start moving forward. Why should we give this administration a pass when no one else got one?
Cost of Bush policies vs. cost of Obama policies:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html
gimmethesimplelife
11-22-13, 4:04am
Cost of Bush policies vs. cost of Obama policies:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.htmlThank for the posting this, Lainey. I very much believe the Bush years pushed the US towards this funky and uncertain place we seem to be in as a nation now much more than the spending of the Obama years has done. Rob
So by that logic this is all Martin Van Buren's fault? Andrew Jackson was the last President to pay off the debt then Van Buren started running it back up and it's never been cleared out since. Somehow, in all the years between 1835 and now, other Presidents have been able to take ownership of inherited issues and start moving forward. Why should we give this administration a pass when no one else got one?
I think we have moved forward - if you look at the direction and the velocity of the economy when Obama came into office, they were really put into the drivers seat after the car had gone off the cliff.
We just have to sit tight. After 01/17, any actions taken during this administration become irrelevant anyway, correct?
LOL, that's a great diversion from the way back machine. Thanks!
As long as we're travelling with Mr Peabody, let's go back to the period where this thread began. Do you think the Presidential election may have had a different outcome if the populace knew that economic/employment data were being falsified, that the ACA was sold on a series of mis-representations, that the power of the IRS was being used to diminish political outreach, with each travesty of transparency designed as political advantage for the present administration.
Would any of that have made a difference? Just curious..
LOL! No, the difference came with the lies and endless list of phony 'scandals' and faux outrage that was the ONLY message from the right.
Thank you for reminding us Alan. :D
OH, and , keep it up! All the way to next fall and on to '16! In fact, I think you all should be thinking about the next government shut down in February. Start planning now. That Kenyan socialist 'Merica-hater is planning to still be in office!
Cost of Bush policies vs. cost of Obama policies:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html
So what you're saying is that no one in the current administration has the authority or the ability to change policy? The article says Bush increased the debt $5T in 8 years. Obama has done it in 5 years. If he didn't support Bush policy couldn't he have changed it back in the glory days when the Democrats still had a majority in the House AND the Senate? Can't use the tiresome "its the Republican's fault" if they couldn't have stopped a tsunami of Democratic change. But the tsunami never happened.
To circle back to Rob's original question, I do believe the unemployment numbers are not as accurate as they could be, but of course that's happened under every administration. For example, not counting people who are discouraged and drop out of the job market, or not counting people who are working part-time but really need a full-time job.
What I think we can agree on is the seriousness of a) long-term joblessness; b) estimated 17% unemployment for youth; c) the new normal of service jobs vs. middle-class wage jobs; d) cutting the safety net of food stamps and unemployment benefits.
I'd like to hear some forum members' proposals on how to start fixing this, if indeed it is even fixable.
What I think we can agree on is the seriousness of a) long-term joblessness; b) estimated 17% unemployment for youth; c) the new normal of service jobs vs. middle-class wage jobs; d) cutting the safety net of food stamps and unemployment benefits.
Could not agree more that these are very serious problems (there's hope for us, aye Lainey?) ;)
The best way to cut the net for food stamps and unemployment is to eliminate the need. That was easy, huh? See below...
One way to create enough jobs, real jobs, is to mount a MASSIVE effort to rebuild and/or develop our infrastructure. Government spending to the tune of trillions of dollars. Spending in the form of an investment, not just the ludicrous check writing that has been going on during my generation. Spending that will provide opportunity for a few generations to come. Kind of like what my grandparents did when they built Hoover Dam and interstates and telephone systems and... Only the 21st century, techie version.
Do the infrastructure thing and the people making all the money from those jobs will hire all the kids to take over the service jobs so that will be solved.
ApatheticNoMore
11-23-13, 2:20am
So what you're saying is that no one in the current administration has the authority or the ability to change policy?
yea the chart seemed to me downright deceptive and stupidly deceptive as well (I mean just so blatant). But that's because I came at it with some assumptions I guess, like a hope that all these unpopular wars would be ended by now. Social programs may be meant to last long term but really wars aren't - there's a deliberate decision to continue them.
Social programs may be meant to last long term but really wars aren't - there's a deliberate decision to continue them.
Seems to me that the US military is one of our largest social programs, and what a waste! I'd rather see the same capital and manpower directed to something more useful, like building bridges, hospitals, schools, roads, sushi bars, that sort of thing.
Seems to me that the US military is one of our largest social programs, and what a waste! I'd rather see the same capital and manpower directed to something more useful, like building bridges, hospitals, schools, roads, sushi bars, that sort of thing.
+1. Although I'd change sushi bars to cafes serving seasonal drinks like peppermint hot chocolate in winter ..
One way to create enough jobs, real jobs, is to mount a MASSIVE effort to rebuild and/or develop our infrastructure. .. Only the 21st century, techie version.
Do the infrastructure thing and the people making all the money from those jobs will hire all the kids to take over the service jobs so that will be solved.
+1
and I've been thinking about b) and one answer has been to encourage my friends in the workforce to consider interns. (No, not the unpaid kind) But just to give someone a chance to put 6 mos to 12 mos of work on their resume can be a huge leg up.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.