The jobless numbers don't add up.http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/05/jobs-report-114k-jobs-...
Jack Welch thinks so: http://www.businessinsider.com/jack-welch-obama-jobs-report-...
katinga: The jobless numbers don't add up.Maybe not. But would anyone bother with this if they were dropping to 8.1%? It is just arbitrarily dropping below 8%. As if that is something to be proud of. What, we're supposed to see that rate drop below 8% for the first time in four years and think, WOW! 0bama's plans really ARE working! They just weren't supposed to work through his entire term, but now we have unemployment inching below 8%! WOO HOO! Really? Look, I know the guy is black and that there is this expectation that he gets the affirmative action treatment because he's gotten it his whole life. I just find that incredibly insulting to him and to all minorities. We can hold him to the same standards as anyone else, regardless of his skin color. He's been a suck-ass President, and his economic record is horrific. There is just no excuse for his failure, and he knows it. Why else was he promising a "summer of recovery" for multiple years, which never came to pass? Every time one of his milestones for recovery passed without any improvement, he would come out with a talking point about how it wasn't supposed to work that fast, just be patient. Because, you know, he inherited all these problems, we can't expect him to work with that.
I expect the September numbers to be revised upwards in about a month.
U-6 has held steady. If this was a GOP president, it would be dismissed as the McJobs recovery.
The highest 1 month jump in 29 years. Hurrah! We're in Reagan Economy II!
"Cooked" or not, the Romney campaign needs to be broadcasting the details beneath the number. As shown in the debate, people actually do appreciate an understanding and explanation of the details (I still maintain my objection to going through 5-, 7-, 14-point plans, etc.).This piece from James Pethokoukis provides a lot of that information. He's got 8 points, but the ones that I think should be emphasized are:1. The number dropped due to 582,000 part time jobs, taken by people who couldn't find full-time work.4. All that has really happened is a shrunken workforce. At the labor participation rates when 0bama came into office, the unemployment rate would be 10.7%. 5. Even this artificial number of FAR worse than what 0bama's plan was supposed to deliver by this time (5.6%)6. The 114,000 jobs created would have been a good number … but for 1962, not 2012. (That's a good line) The U.S. economy needs 2-3 times that number every month to close the jobs gap, and at this rate, would take until 2025 to close the gap (another good line).7. We are still on pace to create fewer jobs this year than last year. Improvement? Not by any normal person's definition.http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-October-Jobs-Surprise
I predicted this tactic about eight months ago. Man, was I right!~aj
The explanation to the skewing is that a lot of people are either getting, or being downgraded to, part time jobs, as a result of ObamaCare.
Here's another October Surprise. Is the media on it like white on rice? Hell, no.Meet the Obama Donors at the Bureau of Labor Statisticshttp://freebeacon.com/meet-the-obama-donors-at-the-bls/
7. We are still on pace to create fewer jobs this year than last year. Improvement? Not by any normal person's definition.Yet, on the positive side, there have already been more jobs created this year alone (1,314,000) than Bush-II created in his entire eight years in office (1,095,000). Sounds like improvement to me.
Yet, on the positive side, there have already been more jobs created this year alone (1,314,000) than Bush-II created in his entire eight years in office (1,095,000). Sounds like improvement to me. ________________________________So you think it is a major accomplishment, to come in after a period where we had a major terrorist event on the home soil, as well as went into a major recession and have a dramatic banking fiascoand to during the period of recovering from all that, a natural time you would expect a relative explosion of growth due to the long period of stagnation is a success because it was not as bad as the time the the terrible events were happening. So, just to rephrase, you think the construction company that comes in after your house has burned down, who takes four years to remove the debris and put in a concrete slab did a good job, because well it was better than when they started? In fact they were better than the other construction company who built a nice home in 5 months 5 years ago that was burned down because it was hit by lightening. After all after 4 years you were in better shape than the end of the previous 8 years!That sounds as dumb as imaginable.
Some over at Pimco are suspicious of the numbers--in an interview on CNBC this afternoon--Pimco's Mohammed El-Erian was asked about possible shenanigans with the unemployment numbers--while he himself was not calling their validity into question, he admitted some of those who work at Pimco--whose job it is to scour the data--had serious concerns about the unemployment figure--mentioning concerns regarding gov't employment specifically--reflecting these concerns he stated: "isn't it peculiar that they (the numbers) are doing that now". Here's part of the transcript--note the bolded portion:...there's job growth. we find out what that number is. that is what leads to the unemployment number. but they're completely disconnected. we really see that today. jack welsh says there's a problem with the voracity of these numbers. i think what we're seeing is just a reality from month to month. over time they tend to converge. in any one month, you do get differences. this month is one of them. are they open to manipulation? i don't buy the conspiracy theory. there are certain people at pimco who do. i respect their point of view. this is just what happens when you have two different ways of collecting data. 115,000 jobs is certainly nothing to get excited about. the number is anemic. certainly not a bullish call. if you're going to fake the number, you do it big. absolutely. that's why i don't buy into it. you're just picking up the issue. it's a key element for the market. so step back. why is the market not as enthusiastic as some people would like it? because it realizes that we need to pivot. so far we've had a correct rally based on chopping off the tails of catastrophe. between what the fed has been doing and what the ecb has been doing, that has reduced the tail risks in the short term. in order to keep going, we need to hand off to fundamentals. today's employment report, while better, is not strong enough for that hand off. cnbc: can i follow up with something you said earlier? you said there are other people at pimco who do believe it's a possible conspiracy theory. tell me more about that. is that bill?el-erian: no, some other people on the trade floor. we go into incredible detail on this report. some say, hey, wait a minute, how could you have government jobs doing what they're doing? isn't it peculiar they're doing that now?http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000120698&play=1Also:Unemployment rate 7.8%; Unemployment rate contradicted by job growth reportToday’s unemployment report met the political threshold set by Obama of being below 8 percent.To reach this threshold, the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics found that an astounding 873,000 people found full-time jobs last month. This finding contradicts virtually every other economic indicator including those used by the Federal Reserve to take the immediate and unprecedented step to embark on the Quantitative Easing 3...Additional evidence that the data used to determine the unemployment rate is not valid can be found in the Bureau of Labor Statistics report on the number of actual jobs created. This report shows only 114,000 jobs created including an increase of 10,000 government workers.Either the Federal Reserve, which has its fingers on the pulse of every element of the economy, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics manufacturing survey report are grievously wrong or the number used to calculate the unemployment rate are wrong, or worse manipulated. Given that these numbers conveniently meet Obama’s campaign promises one month before the election, the conclusions are obvious.“It appears that Obama has hired infamous Iraqi Information Minister Baghdad Bob to calculate the unemployment rate. Anyone who takes this unemployment report seriously is either naïve or a paid Obama campaign adviser,” says Americans for Limited Government Communications Director Rick Manning, also former Public Affairs Chief of Staff at the U.S. Department of Labor.http://netrightdaily.com/2012/10/unemployment-rate-7-8-unemp...Even assuming there were no manipulations:... if one very simplistically tracks merely the unemployment rate to jobless claims, the picture does indeed seem rosier than it currently is. The problem however, is that as always happens in this case, initial claims reflect only a discrete component of the true unemployment situation in the New Normal, which more than anything is characterized by one specific feature: the avalanche like implosion of the labor force, and the departure of millions of people, almost monthly from the labor pool, noted so very often on these pages, and recently forcing even Goldman and JP Morgan to ask whether Okun's law is not in fact broken precisely because of this. As such there is one other correlation that in our humble opinion should be tracked far more closely when trying to anticipate the unemployment rate: that of the unemployment rate but not just to initial claims, but rather to initial and continuing claims, as well as extended benefits and EUCs, which provide a far better picture of those who are truly falling out of the labor pool. And... when using that far more accurate New Normal correlation, the picture is decided worse. In fact, instead of a sub-7% implied unemployment rate, the true implied unemployment rate is just over 12.5%, precisely in line with our calculations if one assumes a historical labor force participation, instead of using election year gimmicks to paint the economic tape....http://www.zerohedge.com/news/which-true-housing-correlation...
Yet, on the positive side, there have already been more jobs created this year alone (1,314,000) than Bush-II created in his entire eight years in office (1,095,000). Sounds like improvement to me.________________________________So you think it is a major accomplishment?Hell, yes. It kicks ass. The GOP has never accomplished anything even close to this.
Yet, on the positive side, there have already been more jobs created this year alone (1,314,000) than Bush-II created in his entire eight years in office (1,095,000). Sounds like improvement to meBack to the not-running-for-president Bush era. When your guy just stinks up the place, go back and blame Bush.If you want to provide details on jobs created, please also include:jobs lost,People on unemployment,People who are either off unemployment or have just given up,People on food stampsMedian incomeWhere are those jobs; i.e. low paying vs. mid-range or upper rangeThen gloat about Obama's positives.
Back to the not-running-for-president Bush era. When your guy just stinks up the place, go back and blame Bush.If you want to provide details on jobs created, please also include:jobs lost,...You might also want to include what was happening in Bush's presidency before things hit an iceberg there was nothing he could do anything aboutAn occurrence that did not happen during Obama's tenure. When in fact we were moving away from that iceberg. Obama started out in a bad place. So did Bush, but Obama's was admittedly worse in some ways. Obama's recovery was and is terrible. It is already slowing down and perhaps heading into recession again, and it is a result of his policy not outside events. The Dem argument is so absurd it is kind of painful to read them trying to justify it.
Then gloat about Obama's positives. He already has:"Obama <> Bush"That's the only message they have.
The jobless numbers don't add up.My personal opinion is that the numbers are not an outright fabrication. Oh sure they fudged the numbers but they did so by using only rosy assumptions when they had to make assumptions.The jobless numbers during this presidency have a tendency to be revised upward a month or two after their initial report. I expect this one to be revised upward too - perhaps by a bit more than usual. But I expect the bean counters will have picked defensible if not terribly realistic assumptions.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |