This from the guy who was notorious for hitting (manipulating) his quarterly numbers for decades. To be fair I guess, if anyone, he is eminently qualified to spot this type of behavior it would be him.“Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can’t debate so change numbers,” http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-05/former-ge-ceo-ja...Republicans, if you don't like the news, just lie about it. :<)B
Are you actually saying that the government numbers are NOT manipulated???I think there is ample data out that has shown manipulation is typical.Now if you are saying that this common manipulation that always occurs has occurred in a consistent fashion with this months report, maybe you would have a case.....dunno.But to intimate that these numbers are not manipulated is disputed by numerous sources.Regardless........jobs are NOT keeping up with the population growth.
Are you actually saying that the government numbers are NOT manipulated???No mostly my comment was about Jack Welch.A master manipulator turned partisan hack, who's own decisions ran GE into a ditch and is now working to put the group who drove our country into a ditch back in charge.So are you actually saying what he implied was correct????B
Are you actually saying that the government numbers are NOT manipulated???Are you saying that they are? I.e., that the number just published was not a simple computation from collected data following the same procedures and techniques which have been used in reporting all prior equivalent numbers?Recognize that this is very different than saying this particular computation is not the best reflection of the unemployment situation. One can make the case for several metrics, each telling us something slightly different. Of course, one can't use one computation for Obama and a different one for Bush since that wouldn't give a meaningful comparison.
So are you actually saying what he implied was correct????B Not at all.Everyone grasps for every little data point to sway the audience......don't ever recall it being to this extreme from either side.So no, Jack Welch......grasping or so it seems.......unless his point is that the governments estimates are always fallible.Why is our country so divided B......wasn't this way with Clinton.
Why is our country so divided B......wasn't this way with Clinton.It wasn't? I guess maybe you overlooked the impeachment trial, the murder accusations and such.News, or lies, travel a little faster now days and admittedly the Republicans have gone even further to the right, but the idea that we are more divided I'm not so sure about.I suspect you are are not accounting for the simple fact that the closer you stand to garbage the more it appears to stink.Doesn't make it true though, just feels like it.B
Any jobs report is more than one number and, in fact, there is more than one report. Just as one should look at more than one poll, one should look at the overall pattern of the data to get a more accurate idea of what it all means. A couple of tidbits from:http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/jobs-new......Last month, for instance, the government estimated that 386,000 more jobs than it had originally reported were created between April 2011 and March 2012, or about 32,000 per month....Jobs figures were revised upward by 40,000 in July, and by 46,000 in August. Combined with the jobs growth in September, that means the economy added 200,000 more jobs than we thought previously.... the household survey also reflected genuinely good news in September. According to that survey, 413,000 workers joined the labor force in September. But 873,000 more people became employed, causing the unemployment rate to fall to 7.8 percent....The firm ADP, which tracks private-sector payrolls, had reported that an average of 170,000 private-sector jobs had been created each month so far this year. The ADP reports are much maligned because they do not always match the government’s payroll figures over the short run. But in the long run, the numbers tend to converge....An average of 146,000 jobs have been created per month over the past year, or closer to 157,000 with the government’s anticipated benchmark revisions accounted for.Those aren’t great numbers by any means, and would translate to an annualized growth rate of 1.4 percent. But over the past 25 years, payroll jobs have grown at an annualized rate of 1.1 percent, or the equivalent of about 125,000 jobs added per month given today’s population....The decline in unemployment under Mr. Obama this year since December is the largest in an election year since Ronald Reagan’s re-election bid, when it declined to 7.3 percent in Sept. 1984 from 8.3 percent in Dec. 1983....
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |