Jobless Rate Falls to 7.8%, Lowest Since January 2009 (and it's not because of people leaving the wo - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Glaber;37927580]source[/QUOTE] erm, where does it say that it disputes the 7.8% figure??? [QUOTE=Glaber;37927580]1. Yes, the U-3 unemployment rate fell to 7.8%, the first time it has been below 8% since January 2009.[/QUOTE] your own source is contradicting you

HOLD IT [QUOTE]1. Yes, the U-3 unemployment rate fell to 7.8%, the first time it has been below 8% since January 2009. [B]But that’s only due to a flood of 582,000 part-time jobs.[/B] As the Labor Department noted: The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.0 million in August to 8.6 million in September. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.[/QUOTE] Key words: Part time Also, I want you to note, what time of the year is it right now. What major Holidays are coming up for the US and Europe?

[QUOTE=Glaber;37927776]Key words: Part time[/QUOTE] uhm hey, last i heard, part time jobs are still jobs stop grasping for straws the unemployment rate is 7.8%

And these Part time Jobs are part of Seasonal Hiring. Temporary Jobs. Also: [QUOTE]3. The broader U-6 rate — which takes into account part-time workers who want full-time work and lots of discouraged workers who’ve given up looking — stayed unchanged at 14.7%. That’s a better gauge of the true unemployment rate and state of the American labor market.[/QUOTE]

Part time jobs are no longer real jobs.

[QUOTE=Glaber;37927854]And these Part time Jobs are part of Seasonal Hiring. Temporary Jobs[/QUOTE] temporary jobs are still jobs stop bullshitting

the democrats, glaber! they're out to get you!!!

I want to believe the rate is actually lower than they say it is. Can I have a major media outlet fuel flames for [i]my[/i] conspiracy theory?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37927876]temporary jobs are still jobs stop bullshitting[/QUOTE] Ok, fine, I'll concede that point to you. however, the rate of growth still wasn't enough to get to the 7.8 percent mark. And even if it is, you still have these points to counter. [QUOTE]4. The shrunken workforce remains shrunken. If the labor force participation rate was the same as when President Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.7%. If the participation rate had just stayed steady since the start of the year, the unemployment rate would be 8.4% vs. 8.3%. Where’s the progress? Here is RDQ Economics: Such a rapid decline in the unemployment rate would be consistent with 4%–5% real economic growth historically but much of the decline is accounted for by people dropping out of the labor force (over the last year the employment-population ratio has risen to only 58.7% from 58.4%). We believe part of the drop in the unemployment rate over the last two months is a statistical quirk (the household data show an increase in employment of 873,000 in September, which is completely implausible and likely a result of sampling volatility). Moreover, declining labor force participation over the last year (resulting in 1.1 million people disappearing from the labor force) accounts for much of the rest of the decline. 5. As the chart at the top of the post shows — a chart originally produced by Team Obama — even the artificially depressed 7.8% unemployment rate is way above the 5.6% unemployment rate the White House predicted for September 2012 if Congress passed the $800 billion stimulus package back in 2009. 6. The 114,000 jobs created would have been a good number … but for 1962, not 2012. The U.S. economy needs 2-3 times that number every month to close the jobs gap (which is the number of jobs that the U.S. economy needs to create in order to return to pre-recession employment levels while also absorbing the people who enter the labor force each month.) At 114,000 jobs a month, the jobs gap would not close until after 2025, according to the Hamilton Project. 7. We are still on pace to create fewer jobs this year than last year. In 2012, employment growth has averaged 146,000 per month, compared with an average monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011. 8. White House economist Alan Krueger says the jobs numbers are ”further evidence” the economy is healing. But he’s wrong. The employment-population ratio, which merely shows how many folks have jobs as a share of the civilian population, was 58.7%. Now that’s up from last month. But it is still far below where it was in June 2009, 59.4%,when the recession officially ended. And it’s even further below the 63% level before the downturn.[/QUOTE] Chart mentioned in quote can be found in source: [url]http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/the-sickly-stagnant-september-jobs-report/[/url] And of course, point 4 brings us back to this: [quote=James Pethokoukis][URL="http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/the-sickly-stagnant-september-jobs-report/"]I posted a bit of this earlier[/URL], but here is the entire, eye-opening note from economists John Ryding and Conrad DeQuadros of RDQ Economics: [QUOTE] This report is a tale of two labor markets. The establishment survey (payrolls) painted a picture of moderately growing employment over the last three months but at a marginally slower pace than over the last year. [B]At this pace of job creation, the unemployment rate should be barely drifting lower given underlying demographic trends. [/B] In contrast, the household survey painted a picture of a sharply falling unemployment rate—down 1.2% points over the last 12 months. [B]Such a rapid decline in the unemployment rate would be consistent with 4%–5% real economic growth[/B] historically but much of the decline is accounted for by people dropping out of the labor force (over the last year the employment-population ratio has risen to only 58.7% from 58.4%). [B]We believe part of the drop in the unemployment rate over the last two months is a statistical quirk (the household data show an increase in employment of 873,000 in September, which is completely implausible and likely a result of sampling volatility).[/B] Moreover, declining labor force participation over the last year (resulting in 1.1 million people disappearing from the labor force) accounts for much of the rest of the decline. With this report, the ISMs, and vehicle sales, the September economy is off to a better-than-expected start but nowhere near as good as suggested by the decline in the unemployment rate.[/QUOTE] Of course, the economy is not growing 4-5%, not even half that. This a jobs recovery built on part-time jobs, falling wages, and disappeared discouraged workers. As JPMorgan’s econ team noted: “The one asterisk to the good news from the household survey was the apparent low-quality composition of the jobs created, as there was a surge in people working part-time for economic reasons, a development which left the widely-followed U-6 broad measure of underemployment unchanged at 14.7%.”[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/economist-unemployment-drop-implausible-a-statistical-quirk/[/url]

[QUOTE=Glaber;37927974]Ok, fine, I'll concede that point to you. however, the rate of growth still wasn't enough to get to the 7.8 percent mark.[/QUOTE] It took several hours for you to accept this. [QUOTE=Glaber;37927974] And even if it is, you still have these points to counter. [/QUOTE] Except those aren't part of the original argument. Your argument was "7.8? thats wrong" This was countered, and what you have brought up additionally for me to "counter" is irrelevant to the original argument

Just to save you guys a bit of time, I investigated Glaber's source just then, the American Enterprise Institute. They seem like a pretty legitimate organization, more so than the usual blogs or superpac stuff we usually see from the right. They're also non-profit, and operate on funds from donations, (possibly from superpacs.) Also, Newt Gingrich is a senior member. Take that however way you want it. :v:

[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;37928062]Just to save you guys a bit of time, I investigated Glaber's source just then, the American Enterprise Institute. They seem like a pretty legitimate organization, more so than the usual blogs or superpac stuff we usually see from the right. They're also non-profit, and operate on funds from donations, (possibly from superpacs.) Also, Newt Gingrich is a senior member. Take that however way you want it. :v:[/QUOTE] It may be a good source or not, problem is that Glaber stated: "7.8% is bullshit" He then cited that source, which actually doesn't actually have anything inside it to back up his claim at all.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37928054]Your argument was "7.8? thats wrong" This was countered, and what you have brought up additionally for me to "counter" is irrelevant to the original argument[/QUOTE] Actually, Point 4 is relevant [QUOTE]4. The shrunken workforce remains shrunken. If the labor force participation rate was the same as when President Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.7%. If the participation rate had just stayed steady since the start of the year, the unemployment rate would be 8.4% vs. 8.3%. Where’s the progress? Here is RDQ Economics: Such a rapid decline in the unemployment rate would be consistent with 4%–5% real economic growth historically but much of the decline is accounted for by people dropping out of the labor force (over the last year the employment-population ratio has risen to only 58.7% from 58.4%). We believe part of the drop in the unemployment rate over the last two months is a statistical quirk (the household data show an increase in employment of 873,000 in September, which is completely implausible and likely a result of sampling volatility). Moreover, declining labor force participation over the last year (resulting in 1.1 million people disappearing from the labor force) accounts for much of the rest of the decline.[/QUOTE] And of course, point 4 brings us back to this: [quote=James Pethokoukis][URL="http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/the-sickly-stagnant-september-jobs-report/"]I posted a bit of this earlier[/URL], but here is the entire, eye-opening note from economists John Ryding and Conrad DeQuadros of RDQ Economics: [QUOTE] This report is a tale of two labor markets. The establishment survey (payrolls) painted a picture of moderately growing employment over the last three months but at a marginally slower pace than over the last year. [B]At this pace of job creation, the unemployment rate should be barely drifting lower given underlying demographic trends. [/B] In contrast, the household survey painted a picture of a sharply falling unemployment rate—down 1.2% points over the last 12 months. [B]Such a rapid decline in the unemployment rate would be consistent with 4%–5% real economic growth[/B] historically but much of the decline is accounted for by people dropping out of the labor force (over the last year the employment-population ratio has risen to only 58.7% from 58.4%). [B]We believe part of the drop in the unemployment rate over the last two months is a statistical quirk (the household data show an increase in employment of 873,000 in September, which is completely implausible and likely a result of sampling volatility).[/B] Moreover, declining labor force participation over the last year (resulting in 1.1 million people disappearing from the labor force) accounts for much of the rest of the decline. With this report, the ISMs, and vehicle sales, the September economy is off to a better-than-expected start but nowhere near as good as suggested by the decline in the unemployment rate.[/QUOTE] Of course, the economy is not growing 4-5%, not even half that. This a jobs recovery built on part-time jobs, falling wages, and disappeared discouraged workers. As JPMorgan’s econ team noted: “The one asterisk to the good news from the household survey was the apparent low-quality composition of the jobs created, as there was a surge in people working part-time for economic reasons, a development which left the widely-followed U-6 broad measure of underemployment unchanged at 14.7%.”[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/economist-unemployment-drop-implausible-a-statistical-quirk/[/url] The point of both quotes is that the growth rate is too small to reach the 7.8 unemployment rate. To actually reach that rate, Jobs had to have been eliminated and people had to have given up looking.

Glaber is now a unemployment truther [editline]5th October 2012[/editline] were are teh real jorbs obummer

Might want to revise that title OP. According to a CBS article I found, it looks like people leaving the work force is why it's down. [quote]Haugen explained that due to the particular data set in question -- that governing the unemployment statistics -- it wouldn't take a multi-bureau government conspiracy in order to produce a 0.3 percentage point shift. He said that part of the reason for the relatively large drop in unemployment this month has to do with the sample size of the current population survey, also known as the household survey. Because the sample size is smaller than the payroll survey, for example, there's more variability in the numbers. "On a month-to-month basis, the household survey employment measure is more variable than the payroll employment measure due to the smaller household survey sample," the BLS said in a press release Friday attached to the jobs report. "Over longer periods, the changes in household and payroll survey employment tend to track more closely." "The smaller the sample size, the higher the variants," Haugen said. "If you're trying to really track the monthly developments in employment you need to focus mostly on data from the payroll survey." Haugen explained that one factor that likely led to the 0.3 percentage point drop in this month's unemployment is the fact that people in the 20-24 age group (including college students and people who are often working temporary summer jobs) left the job market this summer earlier than expected. "In August you had an unusually large decline in employment" among that demographic, he said. Because the BLS does seasonal adjustments for its data, it was primed for a big decline in September, when young people have traditionally left the work force. "What happened was there was a big decline in August and not a decline in September. Because there was no decline [when it was expected] there's a big increase after seasonal adjustment." "In the [monthly household survey] you occasionally get these large movements because it's based on a relatively small survey," he added. "What we tell people is that you need to wait for additional months of data in order to see what the pattern is."[/quote] [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57526845/on-jobs-numbers-bls-vows-theres-no-conspiracy/[/url] under these circumstances the 7.3 becomes more believable. But if you leave out the people leaving the workforce, it become unbelievable.

and the US makes a miracle recovery and pay off our debt then we go to space half of military budget = space

[QUOTE=smurfy;37923597]Fox News front page [img]http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/JOBLESSRATE_20121005_111755.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] sources say yes [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number[/url]

[QUOTE=Glaber;37926880]HOLD IT![/QUOTE] Look Glaber, we know you've played Phoenix Wright but you don't need to keep interjecting so childishly.

Glaber if you reject this one positive report you have to reject every negative report that came before it. You can't fault the system just because it gave you a result you didn't like

[QUOTE=Glaber;37925381]I'm going to have to agree with Fox on this one.[/QUOTE] STOP THE PRESSES

[QUOTE=Habsburg;37930319]Glaber if you reject this one positive report you have to reject every negative report that came before it. You can't fault the system just because it gave you a result you didn't like[/QUOTE] liking it has nothing to do with it. it's the fact that the numbers don't add up (when following the topic title). But once you dig into the "good" news, like CBS did, you find out it's not really as good as you think. apparently the only reason the government can even claim 7.8 percent unemployment is because of a smaller sample for the household survey. [quote](Haugen) said that part of the reason for the relatively large drop in unemployment this month [B]has to do with the sample size of the current population survey, also known as the household survey. Because the sample size is smaller than the payroll survey, for example, there's more variability in the numbers.[/B] "On a month-to-month basis, the household survey employment measure is more variable than the payroll employment measure due to the smaller household survey sample," the BLS said in a press release Friday attached to the jobs report. "Over longer periods, the changes in household and payroll survey employment tend to track more closely." [B]"The smaller the sample size, the higher the variants,"[/B] Haugen said. [B]"If you're trying to really track the monthly developments in employment you need to focus mostly on data from the payroll survey."[/B] Haugen explained that [B]one factor that likely led to the 0.3 percentage point drop in this month's unemployment is the fact that people in the 20-24 age group (including college students and people who are often working temporary summer jobs) left the job market this summer earlier than expected.[/B] "In August you had an unusually large decline in employment" among that demographic, he said. Because the BLS does seasonal adjustments for its data, it was primed for a big decline in September, when young people have traditionally left the work force. "What happened was there was a big decline in August and not a decline in September. Because there was no decline [when it was expected] there's a big increase after seasonal adjustment."[/quote] [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57526845/on-jobs-numbers-bls-vows-theres-no-conspiracy/[/url]

Okay. Also can we get another glaber rule that says he never uses conservative think tanks as a source ever.

[quote]But at a Walmart in Atlanta, shoppers were loosening the reins a bit, buying what they described as small indulgences like scented candle oil and seasonal beer.[/quote] At my store all I sell now a days is scented candles and pumpkin spice beer.

Shit just got real.

People always talk about economics and are like "But this is worse than when Bush took office, Obama must be destroying money or something" and I always like to think of the economy like a plane (or calculus, the analogy is similar). If you are in a plane, and its going downward, and you try and pull up on the plane, for quite some time, your still going to be going down, but your are decreasing the rate at which you are going down. It takes time to bring that plane backt to level, or to increasing altitude. It amazes me that people assume immediately, if things are getting worse, then things must be bad, when really they may be in the process of getting better. Now I can't directly relate this to anything in particular, nor am I sure that this is the case with the current state of the economy, since I never looked at the changes in rates of things, but people expect ridiculous rates of change. And I think this is an example however, that though unemployment may have continued to rise, problems are not fixed overnight, and they are starting to get better. [editline]5th October 2012[/editline] eh, its getting late, sorry for kinda rambling with weird analogies.

Actually, I think of economic recessions like falling down a hill. It's easy to fall down and takes no time, but climbing back up is a struggle, especially when you're injured from said fall.

[QUOTE] [B]Manufacturing, one of the bright spots that Mr. Obama has showcased throughout the re-election campaign, fell 16,000 jobs after losing a revised 22,000 in August, and construction jobs grew by 5,000. The number of temporary jobs, usually considered a harbinger of future growth, fell 2,000.[/B][/QUOTE] Still not good

People need to go back to school if they want jobs. That and on one wants a 8.50/hr-10.00/hr.

[QUOTE=Sodisna;37935147]People need to go back to school if they want jobs. That and on one wants a 8.50/hr-10.00/hr.[/QUOTE]Far easier said than done.

[QUOTE=Lalelalala;37921768]You're in a minority in that buddy, which is why I hate politics and why allowing anyone to vote is a bad fucking idea. "I like this guy! He said something that sounded like a good thing (but meant nothing!)! I'M GONNA VOTE FOR HIM!"[/QUOTE] Well I eagerly await your glorious revolution.