7.8%

24567…13

Comments

  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,834
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    Because two weeks ago I had to hire a a viral media specialist. And they will still work for me in January.


    I totally read that the wrong way at first.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Prince Of Dorkness
    Prince Of Dorkness Posts: 3,763
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    Because two weeks ago I had to hire a a viral media specialist. And they will still work for me in January.


    I totally read that the wrong way at first.

    :lol::lol:

    Oh don't worry.. I've had all my shots.
    I can't drive without Pearl Jam
  • pandora
    pandora Posts: 21,855
    How can someone stop looking for a job? How do they pay the bills?
    Maybe I don't want to know :fp:
  • pandora
    pandora Posts: 21,855
    Zoso wrote:
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    pandora wrote:
    funny stuff Thanksgiving :? give me a break... many are done shopping by then :fp:

    Uh... have you not heard of "Black Friday" which is traditionally the "start of holiday shopping"

    Here... I guess in this odd alternate universe you live in they don't have it. Here's a few pictures from last year...
    bf07.jpg
    9080258-large.jpg
    BlackFridayStampede.png
    Have you been to the mall? I saw the seasonal workers have already decorated :lol:

    (a) I don't go to Malls.
    (b) just because the already-existing staff have already hung a few ornaments in the trees at your local shopping center doesn't mean that every store has hired all of their Christmas staff.

    (c) Where are you getting that the jobs created are only in the retail market? Because two weeks ago I had to hire a second programmer and a viral media specialist. And they will still work for me in January.

    was this the meet and greet at montana?
    :lol: good one...
    I avoid black Friday but yes I have heard of it
    but again seasonal hiring does not begin on that day ...
    that's just the busiest day with the best sales.

    Seasonal employment reflects many industries not just the retail market.

    I don't like malls either, I rarely shop at all, I was there with a friend whom was applying
    for said seasonal job as many were.
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    hedonist wrote:
    Too bad this "good news" (12.1M is still fucked up) had to have a political dig in it; predictable, but yeah, too bad.


    Should I have added "woot" at the end?

    does that counteract political digs?
    Seriously, deflecting with the wootness? Alrighty.
  • Indifference
    Indifference Posts: 2,759
    edited October 2012
    http://app.hedgeye.com/media

    Jobs Report: Fuzzy Math?
    Takeaway: Unemployment is likely in the 10.8-11.1% range, not 7.8%. The government needs to go back and check the math it's using.

    Today’s jobs numbers don’t add up when we take a closer look at what’s been going on during the last four years under the Obama administration. The headline today was that unemployment rate was 7.8%, a suspiciously low number that any American would second guess. Stripping away the government’s window dressing, we believe that the number is somewhere in the range of 10.8-11.1% depending on the methodology used.


    We continue to think the headline US unemployment rate is being artificially deflated through generationally-low labor force participation rates. Hedgeye Senior Analyst Darius Dale explains why the numbers that came out today don’t display the true state of America’s jobs and employment landscape:


    “If you adjust the headline figure for a 10yr average LFPR, the US unemployment rate for September would have been 10.8% in September; a decent improvement over the 11.3% rate in August, but still elevated nonetheless – particularly relative to the elevated 8.9% adjusted rate Obama inherited from President Bush.


    Interestingly, if you adjust the headline figure for the LFPR on Obama’s first day in office, the September unemployment rate would have been 11.1% – substantially elevated from the comparable 7.8% figure he inherited from Bush. What this suggests is that, over the last four years, President Obama has seen the US unemployment rate tick up 3.3% when accounting for all the disgruntled civilians who’ve completely given up looking for work since the president took over the leadership reigns of the US economy.”

    Take a look at the two charts below for a visualization of the range in which we believe the unemployment rate truly lies.

    While this is not the appropriate setting to debate whether or not this material erosion in the US labor market is A) a function of President Obama’s failed economic policies or B) a function of the failed Policies To Inflate out of Washington D.C. in general, we can be sure the dismal state of the US labor market should continue to give Mitt Romney the upper hand in any economic exchange. The next two presidential debates are October 16 and October 22; the former will be Romney’s best chance to capitalize on his momentum from Wednesday night’s big win, as it focuses on both domestic and foreign policy, rather than just the latter as the October 22 debate does.
    Post edited by Indifference on

    SHOW COUNT: (170) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=114, US=124, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
    Mexico=1, Colombia=1 



  • unsung
    unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Why doesn't the dept of labor count those that have given up?

    Releasing these numbers a month before the election doesn't surprise me at all, I would have thought more of you would have seen through it.

    I'm guessing the real unemployment is somewhere in the teens.



    on edit: someone just beat me to it
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 31,589
    Off course this is not the news the GOP would wan't they wan't it to be at 13% till election day remeber they didn't even wan't to give Obama credit for putting Osama to the bottom of the sea ...
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • whygohome
    whygohome Posts: 2,305
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    pandora wrote:
    funny stuff Thanksgiving :? give me a break... many are done shopping by then :fp:

    Uh... have you not heard of "Black Friday" which is traditionally the "start of holiday shopping"

    Here... I guess in this odd alternate universe you live in they don't have it. Here's a few pictures from last year...
    bf07.jpg
    9080258-large.jpg
    BlackFridayStampede.png
    Have you been to the mall? I saw the seasonal workers have already decorated :lol:

    (a) I don't go to Malls.
    (b) just because the already-existing staff have already hung a few ornaments in the trees at your local shopping center doesn't mean that every store has hired all of their Christmas staff.

    (c) Where are you getting that the jobs created are only in the retail market? Because two weeks ago I had to hire a second programmer and a viral media specialist. And they will still work for me in January.

    Animals.
  • whygohome
    whygohome Posts: 2,305
    From CNBC:

    "Economists were expecting 113,000 more jobs and the rate to rise to 8.2 percent. Last month saw 142,000 new jobs as the rate dropped from 8.3 percent in July.

    However, those numbers were revised higher, with the Labor Department putting July's number at 181,000 from the previously reported 141,000 and August up from an originally reported 96,000."

    These revised numbers had a lot to do with it, as did the rise in part-time jobs.

    Everyone will see this through POLITICAL lenses; unfortunately, nobody has worn their AMERICAN lenses in quite some time.

    The response from Jack Welch, Allen West, and Rick Santelli is absurd and disgusting.
    I would like to fight them :D ............I'm not kidding :twisted:
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,297
    Like Mike, I'm confused. Yahoo AP report said:
    The Labor Department said employers added 114,000 jobs in September. It also said the economy created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than the department had initially estimated.

    and
    The rate declined from 8.1 percent because the number of people who said they were employed soared by 873,000 — an encouraging sign for an economy that's been struggling to create enough jobs.

    How does 200,000 (114,000 + 86,000) turn into 873,000?

    :think:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobless-rate-falls-7-123110106.html
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,297
    OK, the Labor Department's number of 200,000 (114,000 + 86,000 from accounting errors) is from a broad survey of employers.

    The Labor Department's number of 873,000 is from a broad survey of households.

    Apparently, the Labor Department uses the broad survey of households to report the unemployment rate.

    I wonder what the average discrepancy between employers vs. household on jobs reported monthly is?
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Prince Of Dorkness
    Prince Of Dorkness Posts: 3,763
    pandora wrote:
    but again seasonal hiring does not begin on that day ...
    that's just the busiest day with the best sales.

    Um.. Pandora, you can't say "again."

    "Again" would suggest that you had already said that. And you didn't.

    You said that many people had already finished their Christmas shopping by Thanksgiving and laughed at the idea that the biggest day for retail was the day after.

    You called that idea "funny stuff." And said "give me a break."

    And now you acknowledge that the best day for retail sales is in fact... Black Friday.

    Nobody said that seasonal hiring starts on Black Friday. But you said that it had already been done in the alternate dimension where you live and used the presence of decorations at your local mall as "proof" of this.
    I can't drive without Pearl Jam
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    unemployment numbers are really part of the smoke and mirrors ... yet another "stat" that acts like a ping pong ball in the great partisan scam ...
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    polaris_x wrote:
    unemployment numbers are really part of the smoke and mirrors ... yet another "stat" that acts like a ping pong ball in the great partisan scam ...

    Exactly. This report means nothing to actual votes. Folks don't vote based on a number. They vote based on their own reality - do I think I have a job that I want, or do I not care to work - is the real measure of how the "unemployment" rate effects the election. Nobody out of work that wants a job is going to vote one way because the reported number is 10% or 2%. They are going to vote because they don't have a job. Now, that may not matter to them (whether they have a job or not). But, if it does, the reported number doesn't matter.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    Exactly. This report means nothing to actual votes. Folks don't vote based on a number. They vote based on their own reality - do I think I have a job that I want, or do I not care to work - is the real measure of how the "unemployment" rate effects the election. Nobody out of work that wants a job is going to vote one way because the reported number is 10% or 2%. They are going to vote because they don't have a job. Now, that may not matter to them (whether they have a job or not). But, if it does, the reported number doesn't matter.

    the report is everything ... which is what is tragic ... the reality is that a lot of people believe these stats are indicative of the state of the country ... it doesn't really matter if the number is politicized because frankly what isn't these days!? ...

    just look at this board ... the obama supporters are touting it as being indicative of strengthening economy while the anti-obama crowd is questioning its authenticity ... back to the partisanship again ...

    it's all smoke and mirrors ...
  • Prince Of Dorkness
    Prince Of Dorkness Posts: 3,763
    Honestly, I've never really thought that unemployment numbers matter nearly as much as others claim they do.

    The president has been polling very well through higher unemployment numbers and just like the debate and the conventions... this isn't really going to matter much.

    The idea that people are thoughtfully pouring over facts and numbers and tax forecasts and foreign policy intricacies is just wrong. Nobody is doing that. People choose who they're voting for for MANY reasons... some of them daft and some of them sound. On both sides. And we all know that.

    However... since we've heard SO much drum banging for the last 4 years about job numbers, I figured it was worth bringing up. And it was.

    (and for the record, I also don't think that the president gets full credit for those numbers, either. As much as we'd like to think differently, a president seldom has much power over the economy)
    I can't drive without Pearl Jam
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    polaris_x wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    Exactly. This report means nothing to actual votes. Folks don't vote based on a number. They vote based on their own reality - do I think I have a job that I want, or do I not care to work - is the real measure of how the "unemployment" rate effects the election. Nobody out of work that wants a job is going to vote one way because the reported number is 10% or 2%. They are going to vote because they don't have a job. Now, that may not matter to them (whether they have a job or not). But, if it does, the reported number doesn't matter.

    the report is everything ... which is what is tragic ... the reality is that a lot of people believe these stats are indicative of the state of the country ... it doesn't really matter if the number is politicized because frankly what isn't these days!? ...

    just look at this board ... the obama supporters are touting it as being indicative of strengthening economy while the anti-obama crowd is questioning its authenticity ... back to the partisanship again ...

    it's all smoke and mirrors ...

    Exactly. So, basically those that believe one way or the other (i.e. have already picked sides) are viewing the numbers (Whatever they might be) through that prism and will not convince the other side otherwise.

    That's why I say - to those that it really impacts (truly undecided), the number in and of itself means nothing. We can argue it's meaning all we want. If a job means something to them, they will vote based on whether they have a job or not (or, move on to the next issue that matters to them to make a decision). Not because you or I interpret some number one way or the other.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,549
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    unemployment numbers are really part of the smoke and mirrors ... yet another "stat" that acts like a ping pong ball in the great partisan scam ...

    Exactly. This report means nothing to actual votes. Folks don't vote based on a number. They vote based on their own reality - do I think I have a job that I want, or do I not care to work - is the real measure of how the "unemployment" rate effects the election. Nobody out of work that wants a job is going to vote one way because the reported number is 10% or 2%. They are going to vote because they don't have a job. Now, that may not matter to them (whether they have a job or not). But, if it does, the reported number doesn't matter.

    The reported number can matter to someone who is still undecided at this point. Many people in here have commented all year that what really matters this election is jobs, and if unemployment is at 8% or below in Nov then it's pretty much a lock for Obama.
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,549
    unsung wrote:
    Why doesn't the dept of labor count those that have given up?

    Releasing these numbers a month before the election doesn't surprise me at all, I would have thought more of you would have seen through it.

    I'm guessing the real unemployment is somewhere in the teens.



    on edit: someone just beat me to it

    The BLS has been measuring unemployment the same way for ages, and they always release their numbers at the beginning of every month. I guess your statement that you thought more of us would have seen through it is implying that the numbers are somehow fudged to give Obama a pre-election bump? I would think you'd be able to see what the bls report is about rather than either be so jaded that you can't acknowledge good news about the economy, or have your heels so dug in that you refuse to recognize that Obama may have done something effective over the last 4 years.

Categories