Do you believe the...

inlet13 · December 2011

...8.6% unemployment statistic today? In other words, do you think it's accurate?

Godfather. · December 2011

inlet13 wrote:

...8.6% unemployment statistic today? In other words, do you think it's accurate?

I think it could be possible I know our company has hired a bunch of people in the last year.

Godfather.

MayDay Malone · December 2011

inlet13 wrote:

...8.6% unemployment statistic today? In other words, do you think it's accurate?

No. The drop is due to 350,000 people who just gave up looking for a job, from what Ive read.

I think until they calculate with this group included, it will not be accurate. I've heard that the actual # is closer to 20%....

Anybody hear anything like that?

Monster Rain · December 2011

I hope so. i don't know of anything that would suggest the latest figure is any less accurate than previous figures. What will matter most to me is seeing if it's a 1-month drop or the beginning of a steady decrease over several months.

StillHere · December 2011

I don't think so
I think that so many have just dropped off the unemployment rolls either because they've run out of benefits
or they've just given up

gimmesometruth27 · December 2011

it is possibly true. the hospital i work at is on a hiring boom and we jut broke ground on 2 new multimillion dollar buildings, so a lot of construction jobs were added in the last 3 weeks.

let's wait and see what happens in the next couple of months.

let's not forget that there will be many temporary retail jobs opening up for the holiday season, so don't be too surprised if the numbers dip again.

inlet13 · December 2011

Interesting. I agree with the majority who have responded.

I think this number is a faulty number. Job creation was below expectations. The huge workforce decline, pushed this unemployment rate number lower. Plus, like some alluded to, the improvement was only in seasonal positions (retail/leisure) that are easily let-go later. The most important statistics: employment gains, hours worked, and avg hourly earnings were below expectations and not very good. I wouldn't trust the unemployment number unless the streak continues into early 2012, and we are seeing a sustained unemployment rate of 8.5% or less. Even if the economy was really improving, the simple math of the unemployment rate says this unemployment number will go up again because those who exited the labor force will enter again, it's just a matter of when.

I bet this number goes up by Q1 2012.

inlet13 · December 2011

MayDay Malone wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

...8.6% unemployment statistic today? In other words, do you think it's accurate?

No. The drop is due to 350,000 people who just gave up looking for a job, from what Ive read.

I think until they calculate with this group included, it will not be accurate. I've heard that the actual # is closer to 20%....

Anybody hear anything like that?

They can't really get at what the number will be like with those who aren't in the labor force. I agree, this would be very high if they could, but is just too tricky to capture.

I think the published statistic you may be referring to is the U6 (which also dropped this month). This provides a stat for those who have taken on part-time roles, but want full-time. This number is a little north of 15%.

Go Beavers · December 2011

inlet13 wrote:

Interesting. I agree with the majority who have responded.

I think this number is a faulty number. Job creation was below expectations. The huge workforce decline, pushed this unemployment rate number lower. Plus, like some alluded to, the improvement was only in seasonal positions (retail/leisure) that are easily let-go later. The most important statistics: employment gains, hours worked, and avg hourly earnings were below expectations and not very good. I wouldn't trust the unemployment number unless the streak continues into early 2012, and we are seeing a sustained unemployment rate of 8.5% or less. Even if the economy was really improving, the simple math of the unemployment rate says this unemployment number will go up again because those who exited the labor force will enter again, it's just a matter of when.

I bet this number goes up by Q1 2012.

Do you think it's a faulty number because you have a hard time admitting that anything could get better while Obama is president? I don't recall you posting threads about doubting the unemployment rate when it was getting higher and higher.

The unemployment rate is adjusted for seasonal fluctuations.

inlet13 · December 2011

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Interesting. I agree with the majority who have responded.

I think this number is a faulty number. Job creation was below expectations. The huge workforce decline, pushed this unemployment rate number lower. Plus, like some alluded to, the improvement was only in seasonal positions (retail/leisure) that are easily let-go later. The most important statistics: employment gains, hours worked, and avg hourly earnings were below expectations and not very good. I wouldn't trust the unemployment number unless the streak continues into early 2012, and we are seeing a sustained unemployment rate of 8.5% or less. Even if the economy was really improving, the simple math of the unemployment rate says this unemployment number will go up again because those who exited the labor force will enter again, it's just a matter of when.

I bet this number goes up by Q1 2012.

Do you think it's a faulty number because you have a hard time admitting that anything could get better while Obama is president? I don't recall you posting threads about doubting the unemployment rate when it was getting higher and higher.

The unemployment rate is adjusted for seasonal fluctuations.

No, I believe it's a faulty number this month because there was such a large swing. Data is less reliable when it's extremely volatile. In other words, when the unemployment rate changes by more than .1% month to month... there's probably a reason other than the underlying data and due to this, it's less valuable. In order for it to be more valuable, it needs to be smoothed. Wait another two months and we'll know what's really happening. Like I said, we don't want a decline in the unemployment rate if it's due to people exiting the labor force. We want it to be due to job creation, not people deciding jobs are a lost cause.

P.S. I know about the seasonal fluctuations and also know (first hand from dealing with this data) that "adjusting" is not always accurate season to season.

CH156378 · December 2011

Godfather. wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

...8.6% unemployment statistic today? In other words, do you think it's accurate?

I think it could be possible I know our company has hired a bunch of people in the last year.

Godfather.

+1

The OP seems to be a doomsdayer type. I am sure the small but positive economic news from the last couple of days has him upset.

inlet13 · December 2011

CH156378 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

...8.6% unemployment statistic today? In other words, do you think it's accurate?

I think it could be possible I know our company has hired a bunch of people in the last year.

Godfather.

+1

The OP seems to be a doomsdayer type. I am sure the small but positive economic news from the last couple of days has him upset.

Just because I don't agree with the Obama administration on everything, doesn't mean I'm a "doomsdayer" or "upset" by positive economic news. Positive economic news is good for everyone, including me.

Anyway, this article pretty much agrees with everything I said:

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=e870b663-1471-467f-adc5-318f6cd40ea7

...is the author also "upset" and a "doomsdayer"? Are the rest of the posters who said they don't buy the drop in the unemployment rate "upset" or "doomsdayers"?

I actually think they are realists and not blind partisans. But, that's coming from me.

CH156378 · December 2011

inlet13 wrote:

Just because I don't agree with the Obama administration on everything, doesn't mean I'm a "doomsdayer" or "upset" by positive economic news. Positive economic news is good for everyone, including me.

Anyway, this article pretty much agrees with everything I said:

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=e870b663-1471-467f-adc5-318f6cd40ea7

...is the author also "upset" and a "doomsdayer"? Are the rest of the posters who said they don't buy the drop in the unemployment rate "upset" or "doomsdayers"?

I actually think they are realists and not blind partisans. But, that's coming from me.

I didn't say anything about Obama in my post. Obsessed much?

inlet13 · December 2011

CH156378 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Just because I don't agree with the Obama administration on everything, doesn't mean I'm a "doomsdayer" or "upset" by positive economic news. Positive economic news is good for everyone, including me.

Anyway, this article pretty much agrees with everything I said:

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=e870b663-1471-467f-adc5-318f6cd40ea7

...is the author also "upset" and a "doomsdayer"? Are the rest of the posters who said they don't buy the drop in the unemployment rate "upset" or "doomsdayers"?

I actually think they are realists and not blind partisans. But, that's coming from me.

I didn't say anything about Obama in my post. Obsessed much?

I made the assumption from your posts you are a supporter of the President. Will you vote Republican?

Smellyman · December 2011

weird. I haven't seen a reference to keynesian yet....

inlet13 · December 2011

Smellyman wrote:

weird. I haven't seen a reference to keynesian yet....

haha... educating a few people on terms is not a bad thing.

RFTC · December 2011

so the #'s come in good/better than expected and we get assholes like cantor and boehner holding press conferences about 'a jobs problem, and alot of people are unemployed' thanks dbags.

like another poster said, we may get another good report come jan, hopefully that trend can continue, my company (small business) hired 2 fte's last month. america fk yeah!

brianlux · December 2011

Good question, inlet13. I just happened to be watching the local TV "news" (what I like to refer to as the local gossip on TV) and there was one report in which it was mentioned how inaccurate the unemployment figures are because many people dropped off that list who had just plain given up looking. Of course the other thing that skews employment figures this time of year is all the temporary Christmas help. I'm guessing those figures will be different in January of February. It's sad to know so many people are out of work.

In a related article (which I'll try to track down) Obama signed some kind of measure to get green building jobs increased. The sad thing is this article indicated that there was resistance to this idea stating that green jobs only represent 2% of the job market. So I'm thinking, well, that makes no sense. Let's get more green jobs going- more jobs, better environment. Makes sense to me!

Go Beavers · December 2011

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Interesting. I agree with the majority who have responded.

I think this number is a faulty number. Job creation was below expectations. The huge workforce decline, pushed this unemployment rate number lower. Plus, like some alluded to, the improvement was only in seasonal positions (retail/leisure) that are easily let-go later. The most important statistics: employment gains, hours worked, and avg hourly earnings were below expectations and not very good. I wouldn't trust the unemployment number unless the streak continues into early 2012, and we are seeing a sustained unemployment rate of 8.5% or less. Even if the economy was really improving, the simple math of the unemployment rate says this unemployment number will go up again because those who exited the labor force will enter again, it's just a matter of when.

I bet this number goes up by Q1 2012.

Do you think it's a faulty number because you have a hard time admitting that anything could get better while Obama is president? I don't recall you posting threads about doubting the unemployment rate when it was getting higher and higher.

The unemployment rate is adjusted for seasonal fluctuations.

No, I believe it's a faulty number this month because there was such a large swing. Data is less reliable when it's extremely volatile. In other words, when the unemployment rate changes by more than .1% month to month... there's probably a reason other than the underlying data and due to this, it's less valuable. In order for it to be more valuable, it needs to be smoothed. Wait another two months and we'll know what's really happening. Like I said, we don't want a decline in the unemployment rate if it's due to people exiting the labor force. We want it to be due to job creation, not people deciding jobs are a lost cause.

P.S. I know about the seasonal fluctuations and also know (first hand from dealing with this data) that "adjusting" is not always accurate season to season.

There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force. 120,000 jobs were added in November, the number of "discouraged workers"(people who have given up on looking) dropped 186,000 when compared to the same time last year.

I'm not so sure that a large swing is less reliable. The unemployment rate dropped 4 tenths for two months a year ago and it's stayed under (for the most part) since. My guess is that it'll drop about .1% each month in the first quarter in 2012. Start your emotional preparation for Obama to get re-elected after that.

inlet13 · December 2011

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

No, I believe it's a faulty number this month because there was such a large swing. Data is less reliable when it's extremely volatile. In other words, when the unemployment rate changes by more than .1% month to month... there's probably a reason other than the underlying data and due to this, it's less valuable. In order for it to be more valuable, it needs to be smoothed. Wait another two months and we'll know what's really happening. Like I said, we don't want a decline in the unemployment rate if it's due to people exiting the labor force. We want it to be due to job creation, not people deciding jobs are a lost cause.

P.S. I know about the seasonal fluctuations and also know (first hand from dealing with this data) that "adjusting" is not always accurate season to season.

There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force. 120,000 jobs were added in November, the number of "discouraged workers"(people who have given up on looking) dropped 186,000 when compared to the same time last year.

I'm not so sure that a large swing is less reliable. The unemployment rate dropped 4 tenths for two months a year ago and it's stayed under (for the most part) since. My guess is that it'll drop about .1% each month in the first quarter in 2012. Start your emotional preparation for Obama to get re-elected after that.

This line about the "exiting the labor force" may be one of the dumbest lines I've responded to on here. First, did you even read the report? Here it is for your reference:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

You said "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force"? Really? So, let me ask you genius... what's the labor force participation rate measure? hmmm... think about it for a bit. Then after you look up the definition, read the report. Particularly focus on the part where they say the labor force declined. Then be sure you come back on here and type a response explaining this quote of yours "There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force". Looking forward to it.

Go Beavers · December 2011

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

No, I believe it's a faulty number this month because there was such a large swing. Data is less reliable when it's extremely volatile. In other words, when the unemployment rate changes by more than .1% month to month... there's probably a reason other than the underlying data and due to this, it's less valuable. In order for it to be more valuable, it needs to be smoothed. Wait another two months and we'll know what's really happening. Like I said, we don't want a decline in the unemployment rate if it's due to people exiting the labor force. We want it to be due to job creation, not people deciding jobs are a lost cause.

P.S. I know about the seasonal fluctuations and also know (first hand from dealing with this data) that "adjusting" is not always accurate season to season.

There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force. 120,000 jobs were added in November, the number of "discouraged workers"(people who have given up on looking) dropped 186,000 when compared to the same time last year.

I'm not so sure that a large swing is less reliable. The unemployment rate dropped 4 tenths for two months a year ago and it's stayed under (for the most part) since. My guess is that it'll drop about .1% each month in the first quarter in 2012. Start your emotional preparation for Obama to get re-elected after that.

This line about the "exiting the labor force" may be one of the dumbest lines I've responded to on here. First, did you even read the report? Here it is for your reference:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

You said "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force"? Really? So, let me ask you genius... what's the labor force participation rate measure? hmmm... think about it for a bit. Then after you look up the definition, read the report. Particularly focus on the part where they say the labor force declined. Then be sure you come back on here and type a response explaining this quote of yours "There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force". Looking forward to it.

I call your genius and raise you one pseudo-intellectual. My saying people exiting the labor force was in response to you saying you don't want the numbers to drop because of "people deciding jobs are a lost cause". You actually confused the terms by first referencing "exiting the labor force" and then trying to make it synonymous with people giving up looking for a job. You should maybe read your link on how they define people exiting the work force vs. discouraged workers. The labor participation rate has been steadily declining for about ten years. Hmmm, think about why that might be? Maybe those baby-boomers are retiring, making us more top heavy with old people. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

You could also clarify why a .4% drop is less reliable other than it's "less reliable when it's extremely volatile". Would there "probably be another reason" if it went up .4%, or would that suddenly be reliable data in order to confirm that Obama is the worst president ever?

Do you believe the...

Comments

Categories