Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The environment gets better and people's working conditions improve? Weren't environment ravaging steel mills and the evil people that run them at the top of the lefty hit list at one point? Now it's cheaper to set up an environment ravaging, worker enslaving steel mill in China.
do employers not include part-time workers in that survey? If that is the case then saying we added nearly 600K part time jobs gets you close
From the FAQ:
I think you can get a feel of this within the establishment survey by looking at this section of the link from earlier:
bls.gov has complete information on a lot of this stuff. Pretty sure this measure hasn't existed the entire time they've done this, no idea exactly when they added this though.It has been there for a while though - Democrats used to reference the figure quite a bit whenever there was a positive jobs report during the Bush administration.
Gallup and, especially ADP, btw were showing substantially stronger gains all summer than the official BLS figures. BLS is regarded as a far more accurate survey, but in this the revisions are clearly moving closer towards that slightly better picture of the Summer job market.
I believe it is all posturing right now and once the election is over they will come to an agreement.. To
to think about the alternative if they don't..The easy to use St. Louis Federal Reserve website keeps these data historically for you to investigate. Here is the link to the employment concerned data: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/10
Its been revised, as you can see here ... Somehow each revision lowers the "unemployment" ratehttp://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
I think this is dead on. It's part of why I said I honestly don't think a Romney or Obama admin will be decidedly different in terms of fiscal governance, there aren't that many different options open right now. The differences will be in the margins. I'm only strongly supporting Obama this go around because I want his long-term appointments for 4 years and slightly better outlook for the social issues I care about.I believe it is all posturing right now and once the election is over they will come to an agreement.. To
Not sure if the BLS has changed how the number is calculated, but one big difference is that it was a common belief among economists in the mid 80's and before that 6% was full employment. Now anything above 5% and people freak out. Same as 6% used to be a great rate on a mortgage...it is all relative.
Your post is far greater hackery. You don't even have any real basis for your statement. I really don't think Romney has the right answers either, but I know Obama is misguided on all his policies to date concerning job growth.You guys understand that THESE types of jobs, the ones you are scoffing at right now, are the exact kind of jobs Romney's talking about creating with his trickle down approach right? I swear the partisan hackery knows no bounds.Only if you get excited about part time work paying less than $8 per hour in place of full time work paying over $12 per hour with benefits. Yeah, great.
How much do you think all those Staples jobs he is so proud of pay?Your post is far greater hackery. You don't even have any real basis for your statement. I really don't think Romney has the right answers either, but I know Obama is misguided on all his policies to date concerning job growth.You guys understand that THESE types of jobs, the ones you are scoffing at right now, are the exact kind of jobs Romney's talking about creating with his trickle down approach right? I swear the partisan hackery knows no bounds.Only if you get excited about part time work paying less than $8 per hour in place of full time work paying over $12 per hour with benefits. Yeah, great.
The only "basis" I have is Romney's claim of creating 12 million low and middle class jobsYour post is far greater hackery. You don't even have any real basis for your statement. I really don't think Romney has the right answers either, but I know Obama is misguided on all his policies to date concerning job growth.You guys understand that THESE types of jobs, the ones you are scoffing at right now, are the exact kind of jobs Romney's talking about creating with his trickle down approach right? I swear the partisan hackery knows no bounds.Only if you get excited about part time work paying less than $8 per hour in place of full time work paying over $12 per hour with benefits. Yeah, great.
If that's hackery, get pissed at your guy...not me. Those are the segments where he says he's going to create jobs.
I agree with LHUCKS? Oh ####.But
What does that have to do with our current economic situation?
I am not sure how that translates into your claim that Romney plans to create only part time low wage jobs like this so-called recovery is seeing. Romney plans to lower tax rates on small business owners to spur job growth instead of burdening small business with higher taxes, more regulations, and Obamacare. That is where real job growth will come from.The only "basis" I have is Romney's claim of creating 12 million low and middle class jobsYour post is far greater hackery. You don't even have any real basis for your statement. I really don't think Romney has the right answers either, but I know Obama is misguided on all his policies to date concerning job growth.You guys understand that THESE types of jobs, the ones you are scoffing at right now, are the exact kind of jobs Romney's talking about creating with his trickle down approach right? I swear the partisan hackery knows no bounds.Only if you get excited about part time work paying less than $8 per hour in place of full time work paying over $12 per hour with benefits. Yeah, great.
We had Mr. Reagan as a President for 8 years, and now Obama for 4. Obama is no Mr. Reagan, sir.
It likely means a correction back up next release, but it makes Obama's talking points easier.Economists universally seem to be considering it a very convenient anomaly.
Romney's immediate talking point was the "true" number is 11% unemployment. I just would like to know what difference there are in past numbers for some level of balance in my own mind. Not implying the argument of 7.8% vs 11% has any merit on our current situation.And thanks for the links everybody. We will see when I feel like looking at the numbers.
Geesh more partisan than FFA dems. They are wrong.
Actually I don't see the issue. I was theorizing why Consumer Confidence was up despite soft economic numbers, it didn't make sense. I opined that perhaps we were seeing jobs numbers under reported. This came to me after ADP seemed to be saying more jobs were created than were credited. This is not the same as some blowhard saying the BLS cooked the books, Obama made the BLS cook the books, the BLS doesn't count except when it puts out bad numbers, etc. because we don't like it politically. This was trying to analyze why some numbers seem counter intuitive. If you can't see the difference that's on you not me.
How's that market implosion coming by the way?
Everyone seems to agree that the Fed needs to cut spending. How exactly do you suppose we cut spending in a way that does not lead to fewer people employed by the Federal government, its contractors, and ancillary businesses?
Lower taxes do not lead to more jobs. They lead to higher profit margins. More demand leads to more jobs.I am not sure how that translates into your claim that Romney plans to create only part time low wage jobs like this so-called recovery is seeing. Romney plans to lower tax rates on small business owners to spur job growth instead of burdening small business with higher taxes, more regulations, and Obamacare. That is where real job growth will come from.The only "basis" I have is Romney's claim of creating 12 million low and middle class jobsYour post is far greater hackery. You don't even have any real basis for your statement. I really don't think Romney has the right answers either, but I know Obama is misguided on all his policies to date concerning job growth.You guys understand that THESE types of jobs, the ones you are scoffing at right now, are the exact kind of jobs Romney's talking about creating with his trickle down approach right? I swear the partisan hackery knows no bounds.Only if you get excited about part time work paying less than $8 per hour in place of full time work paying over $12 per hour with benefits. Yeah, great.
I never said "only". That's your terrible attempt to deflect. But to the point, most middle class and low class jobs are those that CAN be part time, are certainly low wage (or they'd be upper class jobs right?), and some may/may not have benefits...depends on the company. I'll say to your last sentence that job growth generally comes from demand.I am not sure how that translates into your claim that Romney plans to create only part time low wage jobs like this so-called recovery is seeing. Romney plans to lower tax rates on small business owners to spur job growth instead of burdening small business with higher taxes, more regulations, and Obamacare. That is where real job growth will come from.The only "basis" I have is Romney's claim of creating 12 million low and middle class jobsYour post is far greater hackery. You don't even have any real basis for your statement. I really don't think Romney has the right answers either, but I know Obama is misguided on all his policies to date concerning job growth.You guys understand that THESE types of jobs, the ones you are scoffing at right now, are the exact kind of jobs Romney's talking about creating with his trickle down approach right? I swear the partisan hackery knows no bounds.Only if you get excited about part time work paying less than $8 per hour in place of full time work paying over $12 per hour with benefits. Yeah, great.
Those still participating in the Russian Roulette game are doing their best Charlie Sheen impersonation day after day after day. WINNING!!!
Well, 7.8% seems like a big improvement. After all, when he took office 4 years ago and promised to fix the economy it was like all the way up at...8%
But hey, gas prices have doubled since then. Good thing we're looking at greener energy...sort of..well...But at least he showed Romney what a real President looks like at the debate...oh, wait...well maybe...nevermind.Yep, I can see why everybody wants 4 more years...of the SOS. 
gl/hf
I think there would be a lot less "interpretation" if the jobs report was universally positive. The problem is the jobs report was severely conflicted and that obviously leads to more divisiveness.
Fewer people looking for work isn't really all that positive.
Not only is the 7.8% unemployment rate way above the 5.6% unemployment rate that Obama predicted for September 2012 if Congress passed his $800 billion stimulus plan. It’s way above the 6.0% unemployment rate they predicted if no stimulus was passed.Well, 7.8% seems like a big improvement. After all, when he took office 4 years ago and promised to fix the economy it was like all the way up at...8%
A few of the stats look better, and the cries of book cooking are pretty loud. Imagine the outcry if the numbers were good across the board. These are people who cheered when Brazil got the Olympics instead of the US, all because Obama was President. Believe in American indeed.
Numbers are corrected on a monthly basis, not weekly.You know I initially responded with questioning the number as well, but after reading some of the posts on here (most from those on the opposite side of the aisle from me since I am a Romney guy), you can see how the numbers ended up the way they did. Thanks to Slapdash, he knows his stuff on this!!
What are you talking about? What do the Olympics have to do with this?
That's why I was wondering, since the jobs report usually comes out around the 6th, will the next one be pre-election or post-election? It would be kind of funny if it is November 9th, Obama wins, and the rate goes up to a corrected 9%---Obama comes out and says "Fooled you, didn't I?"Numbers are corrected on a monthly basis, not weekly.You know I initially responded with questioning the number as well, but after reading some of the posts on here (most from those on the opposite side of the aisle from me since I am a Romney guy), you can see how the numbers ended up the way they did. Thanks to Slapdash, he knows his stuff on this!!
First Friday of the month, so it'll be on the 2nd.That's why I was wondering, since the jobs report usually comes out around the 6th, will the next one be pre-election or post-election? It would be kind of funny if it is November 9th, Obama wins, and the rate goes up to a corrected 9%---Obama comes out and says "Fooled you, didn't I?"Numbers are corrected on a monthly basis, not weekly.You know I initially responded with questioning the number as well, but after reading some of the posts on here (most from those on the opposite side of the aisle from me since I am a Romney guy), you can see how the numbers ended up the way they did. Thanks to Slapdash, he knows his stuff on this!!
That's why I was wondering, since the jobs report usually comes out around the 6th, will the next one be pre-election or post-election? It would be kind of funny if it is November 9th, Obama wins, and the rate goes up to a corrected 9%---Obama comes out and says "Fooled you, didn't I?"Numbers are corrected on a monthly basis, not weekly.You know I initially responded with questioning the number as well, but after reading some of the posts on here (most from those on the opposite side of the aisle from me since I am a Romney guy), you can see how the numbers ended up the way they did. Thanks to Slapdash, he knows his stuff on this!!
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htmIt comes out the first Friday of every month.
Same as page one
That's why I was wondering, since the jobs report usually comes out around the 6th, will the next one be pre-election or post-election? It would be kind of funny if it is November 9th, Obama wins, and the rate goes up to a corrected 9%---Obama comes out and says "Fooled you, didn't I?"Numbers are corrected on a monthly basis, not weekly.You know I initially responded with questioning the number as well, but after reading some of the posts on here (most from those on the opposite side of the aisle from me since I am a Romney guy), you can see how the numbers ended up the way they did. Thanks to Slapdash, he knows his stuff on this!!
But the correction is going to be the interesting one--what number actually washes out from all this and will that come out November 2nd or November 9th.
The same "Americans" who rooted for the US bid to host the Summer Olympics in 2016 to fail are rooting for the unemployment rate to remain abnormally high.
They both involved gymnastics?
to the contrary, only insane conspiracy theorists think the numbers are illegitimateNobody believes the 7.8 is legit do they? I mean how much more obvious can it be?
