The Repubs can hate that dastardly 7.8 all they want. If the Bureau of Labor Stats had a whazoo and a piece of coal was shoved up it, it would emerge a diamond. That's how tight BLS'S internal security is.The only WH appointee is the commissioner, who operates entirely independently with no White House input or supervision whatsoever. The Census Bureau begins surveying households several weeks before the Fri. due date to ask about unemployment. This is extensive: 2,000 employees/60,000 contacts. A 2nd survey focuses on businesses, and determines how many jobs have been created or lost. The 141,000 businesses and government agencies that agree to participate submit payroll information online or via phone. About a week before the report comes out, the figures are securely transmitted from Census to BLS. At this point, things get real interesting:The suite of offices where the report is prepared are locked down. Employees must have electronic access keys to enter. The economists and statisticians working on the report are required to lock up any paper copies of the report when they’re not at their desks, even to go to lunch. A final draft is completed by Wednesday morning, 2 days before release. Several committees pore over the data to ensure accuracy. Wording is scrutinized to make sure it’s free of anything that could be seen as political spin.Obama, his top economic adviser, and a few other officials saw the 7.8 on Thursday PM. BLS is a subsidiary of the actual Labor Dept., headed by Hilda Solis. And when, historically, do the Dept's. Big Bosses like Solis learn the the highly-guarded number? Labor secretaries don't know the numbers until about 8A Friday, a scant half-hour before release! http://www.telegram.com/article/20121006/NEWS/110069990/1237...
Sorry. You have to look at the figures. You can believe if you wish. I look at this with prejudice. For the first time in my memory, part-time jobs are included in this report as a measured factor in increases in employment. That has not been done before that I recall.At that point, my trust in the figures becomes less than total.In fact, the liberal Huffington Post notes that the unemployment figures Romney put out are substantially more accurate than those of the president. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/jobs-report-part-ti...Unemployment, burger-flipping engineers, part time college grads, people who have given up looking.... real unemployment numbers - not even counting underemployment - are closer to 22%.http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-chart...The U-6 number is close to 15% actual. U-6 includes "... the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment."These are the government's own numbers - just they aren't reported to the public by the media or the government.So, sorry. I don't HAVE to believe the U-3 numbers - that is the narrowest definition of any measure.
I can't believe anyone in this country thinks that 7.8% unemployment is a good thing or a sign of a healthy economy.
For the first time in my memory, part-time jobs are included in this report as a measured factor in increases in employment. That has not been done before that I recall.It's important to always go with what you think you remember rather than actually, uh, doing some research and getting facts. Facts,as Dr. Colbert says, have a proven liberal bias.By the way, did you see my post Friday where I mentioned that Business Insider predicted the drop in unemployment based on historical data regarding light vehicle sales? It seems the two measures track very well.
You're talking to the people who still insist that Obama's birth certificate is fake.
"The only WH appointee is the commissioner"Can you say, "cooking the books for the boss?"
FeedMeCrap wrote: You're talking to the people who still insist that Obama's birth certificate is fake.Speak for yourself.Happy Days Are NOT Here AgainThe jobless rate fell in September to 7.8% from 8.1%, though the economy created only 114,000 new jobs, and some of our conservative friends smell a bureaucratic rat so close to Election Day. We doubt the Labor gnomes are manipulating the numbers, and in any case chasing conspiracies detracts from the real news, which is that the job market still stinks.Democrats are celebrating the decline in the jobless rate, which only shows how their standards have changed since President Obama entered the White House. In 2004, they were lambasting George W. Bush for a September jobless rate that was 5.4%. Only last month they were begging the Federal Reserve to print more money indefinitely because the job market was so weak. Now they say happy days are almost here again.Editorial board member Steve Moore on the good and bad of the jobs report and whether it will help President Obama's campaign.The reality is that more than three years into this weakest of economic recoveries, 12.1 million Americans are still out of work—nearly 23 million by the broader definition that includes those who have stopped looking or can't find full time work—and the labor participation rate is still down to 1981 levels at 63.6%. Hooray!Of the 114,000 new jobs, 104,000 were in the private economy, and all of the 86,000 in upward revisions for July and August came in government jobs. Job growth for 2012 has averaged 146,000 a month, which is down from 153,000 in 2011.Manufacturing employment fell again (down 38,000 in the last two months) further dampening one of the few bright spots in this recovery. A still abysmal 40.1% of the unemployed in America have been jobless for six months or more. Such a job market is anemic by any historic measure for this stage in an expansion and reflects continuing slow GDP growth in the 1%-2% range.More at => http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044422310457803...
CC is cc'ing Rightie talking points again without regard for facts?The jobless rate fell in September to 7.8% from 8.1%, though the economy created only 114,000 new jobs, and some of our conservative friends smell a bureaucratic rat so close to Election Day. Maybe they smell rats because of the company they keep? As I pointed out yet again in this thread, Business Insider had already predicted the drop in unemployment based on trending economic indicators.In 2004, they were lambasting George W. Bush for a September jobless rate that was 5.4%. Nope -- you made that up. 5.4% is within spitting distance of what's generally held to be "full employment". (Depending on who you talk to, that number seems to be generally around 3.x%.) Everyone says the numbers aren't what they should be, but at least now we're creating jobs each month rather than hemorrhaging jobs like Republicans.
In 2004, they were lambasting George W. Bush for a September jobless rate that was 5.4%.-----------Nope -- you made that up. She makes up everything she posts. It's pathetic.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |