Most real journalists are questioning the numbers. Not is the number real, but what made it what it is, and is it meaningful?"What this .03% drop means (per Ed Morrissey) is that the number of unemployed people dropped by 456,000 when only 114k jobs were created--well below the monthly average, and below population growth. Where did 342k people go to lower the number so dramatically just 31 days before a presidential election? Did they retire, leave the planet, die of old age in the unemployment office?Moreover, just 30 days before the election, 342K people dropped off the unemployment rolls and lowered the unemployment rate to below 8%--a benchmark number vitally important to President Obama who promised his stimulus would ensure we wouldn’t hit 8%.Finally, this is the second hinky looking report/revision from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in as many months. Just days ago, 400,000 jobs were "discovered"--almost the exact number Obama needed to have a record of creating more jobs on his watch than were lost.The Obama-friendly media is rolling out some very convenient talking points, with NPR crowing in its half-hourly news bulletin: "The unemlpoyment rate is now back where it was in when President Barack Obama took office in January 2009." Except it isn't, exactly."http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/05/Fuzz-Math...Perhaps a better explanation:"That said, a closer look shows the entire drop in the unemployment rate can be attributed to a surprise rise of 582,000 in part-time workers. U-6 unemployment remained at 14.7%. U-6 includes part-time workers who want a full-time job.Over the past several years people have dropped out of the labor force at an astounding, almost unbelievable rate, holding the unemployment rate artificially low. Some of this was due to major revisions last month on account of the 2010 census finally factored in. However, most of it is simply economic weakness."Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-unemployment-rate-drop-do...
The boomers are retiring, you know.Peter
"Most real journalists are questioning the numbers."Define "real." Breitbart folk ain't IMO.Ken
You will be savaged over these comments.Liberals here only want to hear their facts - never challenges. Prepare to be screwed to the wall and defamed in multiple unthought-of ways.
You will be savaged over these comments.Liberals here only want to hear their facts - never challenges. Right.Or, perhaps reading the Wall Street Journal's balanced news and analysis might prove to be more enlightening to reactionaries like you.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044376880457803...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044349330457803...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044349330457803...Schvitz
I know I shouldn't be surprised that people are this stupid, but I still am.
What this .03% drop means (per Ed Morrissey) is that the number of unemployed people dropped by 456,000 when only 114k jobs were created--well below the monthly average, and below population growth. Where did 342k people go to lower the number so dramatically just 31 days before a presidential election? Did they retire, leave the planet, die of old age in the unemployment office?If you or your favorite comic book writers were to have read today's Wall St Jl , you would have the answer. I'll summarize the data presented.Of those employed in September, 3.8m weren't in the labor force in August and 2.4m were unemployed in August, for a total of 6.2m newly employed. 136.7m of those employed in September had jobs in AugustOf those unemployed in September, 1.9m were employed in August [fired or laid off] and 2.9m were new entrants to the labor force [new grads], for a total of 4.8m newly unemployed. 7.3m of those unemployed in September were unemployed in August.Of those not in the labor force in September, 3.5m had jobs in August [retirees or students back to school] and 2.8m were unemployed in August [the drop-outs], for a total of 6.3m. 82.1m of those not in the labor force in September were also not in the labor force in August.If you just do the arithmetic you will arrive at the following:142.1m were employed in September and 12.1m were unemployed in September. [unemployment rate = 7.8%]142.1m were employed in August and 12.5m were unemployed in August.[unemployment rate = 8.1%]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044349330457803...... [subscription needed]The number add up, and they make sense.Schvitz
LOL You and anybody else can cook up the numbers any way you want to to make yourself feel better. The fact remains this economy is not going anywhere fast. More likely:http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/03/12/job-growth-mismatched..."This is seen as a violation of “Okun’s Law,” named for the Yale economist Arthur Okun, who set the relationship through statistical modeling between GDP growth and the unemployment rate. Today’s job growth would fit a 4-5% GDP growth in his model. But the current state of affairs does not appear to be tracking this. "
LOL You and anybody else can cook up the numbers any way you want to to make yourself feel better. The fact remains this economy is not going anywhere fast.This is the usual nonsensical response of one who is either unable or too lazy to address the data. I took those data directly from the Wall St Jl, and performed calculations no more complicated that simple addition or division [which, nevertheless, may be beyond your ability]. I 'cooked' nothing.As to Okun's Law [perhaps your feeble attempt to display some economic erudition], it was originally formulated [as I recall] as a univariate linear model, and was strictly empirically based on date from the 1960s [I think]. Well, times have changed and econometrics has moved on, to multivariate and, one would hope, nonlinear models. Although I am trained in applied statistics, I'm not an econometrician and, so, have no opinion on the validity of your cite.Schvitz
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |