Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

Unemployment lowest since 2008

Recommended Posts

I can pretty much guarantee that if Obama wins, there will be no bipartisan agreement, and these cuts will go into effect.

No you can't.
Hence the words "pretty much." Since I still expect Obama to win, I hope I'm wrong about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can pretty much guarantee that if Obama wins, there will be no bipartisan agreement, and these cuts will go into effect.

No you can't.
Hence the words "pretty much." Since I still expect Obama to win, I hope I'm wrong about this.
There's too many members of Congress getting too many contributions from defense contractors for them to let this actually happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a very specific reason why the re-election of Barack Obama will lead to an almost immediate increase in job losses: under the agreement reached last summer, if no further bipartisan agreement is reached, there will be, for the first time, significant cuts to defense spending. This means existing projects will be closed down or reduced, and base closures as well. Keep in mind that, in many communities, these projects and bases not only provide jobs directly, but also help to support the private economy.

I can pretty much guarantee that if Obama wins, there will be no bipartisan agreement, and these cuts will go into effect. That's not entirely his fault: IMO, it is much more the fault of Republican intransigence. But that doesn't change the reality of the situation. It also doesn't mean for sure that a Romney presidency will be able to avoid the coming impasse. But I believe his chances of doing so are higher.

I think you're wrong here. If Obama wins, it will send a crystal clear message to the Repubs that this strategy of refusal to play doesn't work with the voters.

Plus, these deadline issues always get resolved, no matter how poorly, before the catastrophic deadline is reached. No one wins if we go off the fiscal cliff, and they will undoubtedly find a way to just kick the can down the road a bit further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a joke.

Jack Welch tweeted something to the effect "these Chicago guys are shameless, cant debate so the change the numbers"

They just interviewed the Sec of Labor on CNBC and she was upset that anyone would question the numbers and the timing. Right after she laid into congress saying it is thier that the number should be even better if it wasnt for them.

Jack Welch's shares in GE have risen something like 18 percent in less than 3 months. Will he refuse to take that price, figuring that those "Chicago guys" have rigged the stock market along with the job numbers?
Federal Reserve policy is pumping up the stock market.

And personally I don't think the job numbers are rigged. I think they refelect exactly what is going on in the country. People are settling for part time and/or low paying full time work. The middle class jobs they used to have aren't coming back.

I agree with that about the jobs, its been a 40+ year trend towards the new normal. But Jack Welch, who has profited immensely from it is hardly one to complain about those "Chicago guys." It's like Romney's convention speech where he complained about people who used to have good paying jobs now having to work part-time jobs paying 9 per hour. What, exactly, does he think happens in the job market when you close down steel mills and have people work at places like Staples?
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. Edited by DrJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

two serious questions:

1. What is the reconciliation between the two two numbers - the big one and the 114K?

2. What does this mean for QE3? Is it relevant?

1. There are two completely seperate surveys that the BLS conducts to derive these figures. The unemployment rate is derived from the household survey and attempts to sample the amount of people entering/leaving jobs and the labor force. The establishment survey is where you get the payroll figures and it is a sample of the people being added to or taken away from the payrolls of businesses. These surveys have very different ways and methods of measuring the labor markets and can often diverge. One example would be that employment at start-ups would typically be picked up in the household survey before the establishment survey. You can find out more here: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

1b. Alternate private sector surveys are conducted by Gallup and ADP, among others, that can provide a reasonable check to the data published by the BLS.

2. A falling unemployment rate will (all else equal) lessen the duration of QE3 and Zero Interest Rate Policy.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those pointing to the 10-11% unemployment number that would be if all those no longer looking for work are included...

Has anything changed in how we determine the unemployment rate? So when Reagan was just under 8% before his reelection, does that measure what the 7.8% today measured? Did 1984 also see a number of "no longer looking" people who if included, would have increased the rate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

two serious questions:

1. What is the reconciliation between the two two numbers - the big one and the 114K?

2. What does this mean for QE3? Is it relevant?

1. There are two completely seperate surveys that the BLS conducts to derive these figures. The unemployment rate is derived from the household survey and attempts to sample the amount of people entering/leaving jobs and the labor force. The establishment survey is where you get the payroll figures and it is a sample of the people being added to or taken away from the payrolls of businesses. These surveys have very different ways and methods of measuring the labor markets and can often diverge. One example would be that employment at start-ups would typically be picked up in the household survey before the establishment survey. You can find out more here: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

1b. Alternate private sector surveys are conducted by Gallup and ADP, among others, that can provide a reasonable check to the data published by the BLS.

2. A falling unemployment rate will (all else equal) lessen the duration of QE3 and Zero Interest Rate Policy.

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:

Are part-time employees counted in your survey?

Yes, the survey captures counts of all employees on the payroll, and part-time employees are part of the total. They are not counted separately. The Current Population Survey does have a separate tally for part-time employees.

I think you can get a feel of this within the establishment survey by looking at this section of the link from earlier:

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by

0.1 hour to 34.5 hours in September. The manufacturing workweek edged up by

0.1 hour to 40.6 hours, and factory overtime was unchanged at 3.2 hours.

The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private

nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those pointing to the 10-11% unemployment number that would be if all those no longer looking for work are included...Has anything changed in how we determine the unemployment rate? So when Reagan was just under 8% before his reelection, does that measure what the 7.8% today measured? Did 1984 also see a number of "no longer looking" people who if included, would have increased the rate?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

two serious questions:

1. What is the reconciliation between the two two numbers - the big one and the 114K?

2. What does this mean for QE3? Is it relevant?

1. There are two completely seperate surveys that the BLS conducts to derive these figures. The unemployment rate is derived from the household survey and attempts to sample the amount of people entering/leaving jobs and the labor force. The establishment survey is where you get the payroll figures and it is a sample of the people being added to or taken away from the payrolls of businesses. These surveys have very different ways and methods of measuring the labor markets and can often diverge. One example would be that employment at start-ups would typically be picked up in the household survey before the establishment survey. You can find out more here: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

1b. Alternate private sector surveys are conducted by Gallup and ADP, among others, that can provide a reasonable check to the data published by the BLS.

2. A falling unemployment rate will (all else equal) lessen the duration of QE3 and Zero Interest Rate Policy.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a very specific reason why the re-election of Barack Obama will lead to an almost immediate increase in job losses: under the agreement reached last summer, if no further bipartisan agreement is reached, there will be, for the first time, significant cuts to defense spending. This means existing projects will be closed down or reduced, and base closures as well. Keep in mind that, in many communities, these projects and bases not only provide jobs directly, but also help to support the private economy.

I can pretty much guarantee that if Obama wins, there will be no bipartisan agreement, and these cuts will go into effect. That's not entirely his fault: IMO, it is much more the fault of Republican intransigence. But that doesn't change the reality of the situation. It also doesn't mean for sure that a Romney presidency will be able to avoid the coming impasse. But I believe his chances of doing so are higher.

I believe it is all posturing right now and once the election is over they will come to an agreement..

To :scared: to think about the alternative if they don't..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those pointing to the 10-11% unemployment number that would be if all those no longer looking for work are included...

Has anything changed in how we determine the unemployment rate? So when Reagan was just under 8% before his reelection, does that measure what the 7.8% today measured? Did 1984 also see a number of "no longer looking" people who if included, would have increased the rate?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those pointing to the 10-11% unemployment number that would be if all those no longer looking for work are included...Has anything changed in how we determine the unemployment rate? So when Reagan was just under 8% before his reelection, does that measure what the 7.8% today measured? Did 1984 also see a number of "no longer looking" people who if included, would have increased the rate?

Its been revised, as you can see here ... Somehow each revision lowers the "unemployment" ratehttp://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a very specific reason why the re-election of Barack Obama will lead to an almost immediate increase in job losses: under the agreement reached last summer, if no further bipartisan agreement is reached, there will be, for the first time, significant cuts to defense spending. This means existing projects will be closed down or reduced, and base closures as well. Keep in mind that, in many communities, these projects and bases not only provide jobs directly, but also help to support the private economy.

I can pretty much guarantee that if Obama wins, there will be no bipartisan agreement, and these cuts will go into effect. That's not entirely his fault: IMO, it is much more the fault of Republican intransigence. But that doesn't change the reality of the situation. It also doesn't mean for sure that a Romney presidency will be able to avoid the coming impasse. But I believe his chances of doing so are higher.

I believe it is all posturing right now and once the election is over they will come to an agreement..

To :scared: to think about the alternative if they don't..

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those pointing to the 10-11% unemployment number that would be if all those no longer looking for work are included...Has anything changed in how we determine the unemployment rate? So when Reagan was just under 8% before his reelection, does that measure what the 7.8% today measured? Did 1984 also see a number of "no longer looking" people who if included, would have increased the rate?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably the worst thing that could have happened for the country

1. We are kicking off the final stretch of the elections

2. Unemployment numbers come out and they are "good"

3. Idiots read the articles but don't realize how bad things really are or how much worse they can get

4. Idiots vote for fiscally irresponsible candidates because they think things are improving

5. Idiots wonder why economic policy is ineffective for years to come

God Bless America

Edited by LHUCKS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7.8%? That's excellent news.

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. :rolleyes:
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.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7.8%? That's excellent news.

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. :rolleyes:
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.
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.
How much do you think all those Staples jobs he is so proud of pay? Edited by Go DC Yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7.8%? That's excellent news.

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. :rolleyes:
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.
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.
The only "basis" I have is Romney's claim of creating 12 million low and middle class jobs :shrug: If that's hackery, get pissed at your guy...not me. Those are the segments where he says he's going to create jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably the worst thing that could have happened for the country1. We are kicking off the final stretch of the elections2. Unemployment numbers come out and they are "good"3. Idiots read the articles but don't realize how bad things really are or how much worse they can get4. Idiots vote for fiscally irresponsible candidates because they think things are improving 5. Idiots wonder why economic policy is ineffective for years to comeGod Bless America

I agree with LHUCKS? Oh ####.But :goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those pointing to the 10-11% unemployment number that would be if all those no longer looking for work are included...Has anything changed in how we determine the unemployment rate? So when Reagan was just under 8% before his reelection, does that measure what the 7.8% today measured? Did 1984 also see a number of "no longer looking" people who if included, would have increased the rate?

What does that have to do with our current economic situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7.8%? That's excellent news.

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. :rolleyes:
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.
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.
The only "basis" I have is Romney's claim of creating 12 million low and middle class jobs :shrug: 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 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those pointing to the 10-11% unemployment number that would be if all those no longer looking for work are included...Has anything changed in how we determine the unemployment rate? So when Reagan was just under 8% before his reelection, does that measure what the 7.8% today measured? Did 1984 also see a number of "no longer looking" people who if included, would have increased the rate?

We had Mr. Reagan as a President for 8 years, and now Obama for 4. Obama is no Mr. Reagan, sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So weekly jobless claims go up and we're supposed to believe that the Household Survey added +873K jobs, the highest level since 1983?

These guys are shameless.

I thought this was interesting... From the CNBC article:

Employers are expected to have added 113,000 jobs to their payrolls in September, an increase from 96,000 in August, with the unemployment rate edging up by a tenth of a percentage point to 8.2 percent, according to a Reuters survey of economists.

Just about dead-on for the added jobs, but .4% off on the unemployment rate? Thats a huge jump.
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.

Edited by jonessed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those pointing to the 10-11% unemployment number that would be if all those no longer looking for work are included...Has anything changed in how we determine the unemployment rate? So when Reagan was just under 8% before his reelection, does that measure what the 7.8% today measured? Did 1984 also see a number of "no longer looking" people who if included, would have increased the rate?

What does that have to do with our current economic situation?
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is proof that some people are genuinely pissed at a more positive jobs report. Mind boggling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the numbers so they are lies. Doesn't matter if it's the polls, the jobs report or the weather report everyone is in the tank. You guys need to grow up a bit.

Or Mitt Romney manhandling Obama in the debate.
I don't know of any Dems that didn't think Romney clearly won the kabuki dance. Maybe you can point them out for me.
Here are a few...
Geesh more partisan than FFA dems. They are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the numbers so they are lies. Doesn't matter if it's the polls, the jobs report or the weather report everyone is in the tank. You guys need to grow up a bit.

Is part of this adjustment the something like 400k jobs that the BLS added after it audited mar of 2011 through March 2012? No one could figure out why consumer confidence was up in the face of all the soft numbers. I thought then it was under reported employment numbers and it seems I may have been right.

:lmao: Can't make this stuff up.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably the worst thing that could have happened for the country1. We are kicking off the final stretch of the elections2. Unemployment numbers come out and they are "good"3. Idiots read the articles but don't realize how bad things really are or how much worse they can get4. Idiots vote for fiscally irresponsible candidates because they think things are improving 5. Idiots wonder why economic policy is ineffective for years to comeGod Bless America

How's that market implosion coming by the way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a very specific reason why the re-election of Barack Obama will lead to an almost immediate increase in job losses: under the agreement reached last summer, if no further bipartisan agreement is reached, there will be, for the first time, significant cuts to defense spending. This means existing projects will be closed down or reduced, and base closures as well. Keep in mind that, in many communities, these projects and bases not only provide jobs directly, but also help to support the private economy. I can pretty much guarantee that if Obama wins, there will be no bipartisan agreement, and these cuts will go into effect. That's not entirely his fault: IMO, it is much more the fault of Republican intransigence. But that doesn't change the reality of the situation. It also doesn't mean for sure that a Romney presidency will be able to avoid the coming impasse. But I believe his chances of doing so are higher.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7.8%? That's excellent news.

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. :rolleyes:
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.
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.
The only "basis" I have is Romney's claim of creating 12 million low and middle class jobs :shrug: 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 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.
Lower taxes do not lead to more jobs. They lead to higher profit margins. More demand leads to more jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7.8%? That's excellent news.

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. :rolleyes:
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.
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.
The only "basis" I have is Romney's claim of creating 12 million low and middle class jobs :shrug: 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 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.
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. Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think 8% unemployment is something to get all excited about, personaly. The left thought 5% unemployment under Bush was horrid. remember the "Jobless Recovery" of yesteryear. I remember, but i'm sure the libs have forgotten now that their guy is promoting 8% like its big cheese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably the worst thing that could have happened for the country

1. We are kicking off the final stretch of the elections

2. Unemployment numbers come out and they are "good"

3. Idiots read the articles but don't realize how bad things really are or how much worse they can get

4. Idiots vote for fiscally irresponsible candidates because they think things are improving

5. Idiots wonder why economic policy is ineffective for years to come

God Bless America

How's that market implosion coming by the way?
Those still participating in the Russian Roulette game are doing their best Charlie Sheen impersonation day after day after day. WINNING!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think 8% unemployment is something to get all excited about, personaly. The left thought 5% unemployment under Bush was horrid. remember the "Jobless Recovery" of yesteryear. I remember, but i'm sure the libs have forgotten now that their guy is promoting 8% like its big cheese.

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% :mellow: 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. :thumbup: gl/hf Edited by DoubleG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is proof that some people are genuinely pissed at a more positive jobs report. Mind boggling.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!! :thumbup:

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.

Edited by Courtjester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is proof that some people are genuinely pissed at a more positive jobs report. Mind boggling.

Fewer people looking for work isn't really all that positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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% :mellow:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is proof that some people are genuinely pissed at a more positive jobs report. Mind boggling.

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.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!! :thumbup: 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.

Numbers are corrected on a monthly basis, not weekly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is proof that some people are genuinely pissed at a more positive jobs report. Mind boggling.

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.
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.
What are you talking about? What do the Olympics have to do with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!! :thumbup: 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.

Numbers are corrected on a monthly basis, not weekly.
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?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!! :thumbup: 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.

Numbers are corrected on a monthly basis, not weekly.
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?"
First Friday of the month, so it'll be on the 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!! :thumbup: 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.

Numbers are corrected on a monthly basis, not weekly.
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?"

The Employment Situation for October is scheduled to be released onFriday, November 2, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htmIt comes out the first Friday of every month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is proof that some people are genuinely pissed at a more positive jobs report. Mind boggling.

Same as page one :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!! :thumbup:

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.

Numbers are corrected on a monthly basis, not weekly.
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?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is proof that some people are genuinely pissed at a more positive jobs report. Mind boggling.

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.
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.
What are you talking about? What do the Olympics have to do with this?
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. Edited by Go DC Yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is proof that some people are genuinely pissed at a more positive jobs report. Mind boggling.

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.
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.
What are you talking about? What do the Olympics have to do with this?
They both involved gymnastics? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers come out and the first thing the RNC/FOX does is say it is a conspiracy. OOF! Was listening to Hannity on the radio on the way home from work, and the talking points memo must have been sent down to keep saying over and over that these new unemployment numbers are not really any better, and that it is quite possibly some number wringing to make Obama look good.

Yeah, that is exactly what the DNC was doing all along. Holding back the jobs numbers till just the right time. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.