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...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.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
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-...n-jobs-report/
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
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 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)