Jobless Rate Falls -- The Obama boost

**BarryG** · 10-06-2012, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by ADL

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but until someone can answer this question that Nick The Cage posted, I will continue to beleive that this recent unemployment figure is hogwash. As soon as I saw the details supporting the new unemployment numbers, this jumped right off the page.

Are there any Obama-supporting weekend economists that want to take a crack at answering this?

It's not a mystery, they are people that stopped looking for jobs.

**2happy4u** · 10-06-2012, 02:47 PM

One has to be drunk with HOPE & CHANGE to believe anything that this administration is laying out as truth . This is the lowest bunch in power since we split from King Henry VIII . My goodness, how can people claim to be educated then support this phony???

**Giavella Water** · 10-06-2012, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by 2happy4u

One has to be drunk with HOPE & CHANGE to believe anything that this administration is laying out as truth . This is the lowest bunch in power since we split from King Henry VIII . My goodness, how can people claim to be educated then support this phony???

Obamabots are no better than Moonies when it comes to critical thinking about the dear leader just as neo-Cons were when W was in office.

**OffenseTaken** · 10-06-2012, 04:46 PM

"since we split from King Henry VIII"

**ADL** · 10-06-2012, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by BarryG

It's not a mystery, they are people that stopped looking for jobs.

In the past year, when unemployment fell it was due entirely to people simply giving up on looking for a job. But the most recent report claims that over 800,000 previously unemployed people found jobs in September. How that can happen when only 114,000 jobs were created is sketchy to to say the least.

**Naveen** · 10-06-2012, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by BarryG

It's not a mystery, they are people that stopped looking for jobs.

Didn't the BLS report say more people entered the labor force?

Originally Posted by OffenseTaken

"since we split from King Henry VIII"

Priceless.

**CenterCityGuy** · 10-06-2012, 08:11 PM

Fraudulent job numbers provided a month before the election so the CLOWN can get re-elected.

**CenterCityGuy** · 10-06-2012, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by ADL

In the past year, when unemployment fell it was due entirely to people simply giving up on looking for a job. But the most recent report claims that over 800,000 previously unemployed people found jobs in September. How that can happen when only 114,000 jobs were created is sketchy to to say the least.

There are lots of people who exhausted their UC benefits and not included in the numbers.

**geoffrobinson** · 10-06-2012, 09:16 PM

So for about two years the story has been that Obama has been thwarted at every turn by Congress. So shouldn't the credit for this improved number be given to the Congress that doesn't do anything? Or is consistency in argument too much to ask for?

Honestly, if you wait long enough you should see some improvement. And if you start meddling you are likely to postpone the necessary restructuring the economy needs.

**2happy4u** · 10-07-2012, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by OffenseTaken

"since we split from King Henry VIII"

Don't know much about history? Read up about the Tudor Period.

**ADL** · 10-07-2012, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by CenterCityGuy

There are lots of people who exhausted their UC benefits and not included in the numbers.

So what you're saying is when people exhaust ther UC benefits, they are simply counted as having found a job??? Am I the ony one that sees this figure..."800,000 previously unemployed people found jobs in September" !!! It doesn't say "800,000 people ran out of UC benefits" or "800,000 people left the work force". Please...I'm begging...someone pleas explain this.

**ADL** · 10-07-2012, 09:49 PM

The closest thing I've found to an explanation is that the "jobs created figure" comes from data collected by ADP and other payroll companies. The "number of previously employed people who have found jobs" come from 60,000 phone surveys. Obviously, the departmet of labor can't take 800,000 surveys. I'm not disputing the sample size of 60,000. What I'm disputing is who did they call for this survey...everyone man, woman , and child in North Dakota where unemployment is 3%???

I invite any and all Obamabots to justify this figure of 800,000 newly employed people when only 114,000 jobs were created. (And you can't justify this number by sayng "you're a racist" or "it's all George Bush's fault".)

**NickTheCage** · 10-08-2012, 06:59 AM

Since the numbers are trending lower at such a rapid pace why not slash food stamp programs, disability, unemployment insurance, etc .. we could take the entire welfare state and slash it by 1/3, may even 40%. If only 7.8% of our citizens are unemployed and The Bamsters programs are leading us in the right direction, why continue to grow the welfare state?

Wouldn't it make sense to cut, cut, cut and lower the deficit?

**Politburo** · 10-08-2012, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by CenterCityGuy

There are lots of people who exhausted their UC benefits and not included in the numbers.

Being counted as unemployed in the stats has nothing to do with UC. If you are looking for a job, you are unemployed.

**Politburo** · 10-08-2012, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by ADL

The closest thing I've found to an explanation is that the "jobs created figure" comes from data collected by ADP and other payroll companies. The "number of previously employed people who have found jobs" come from 60,000 phone surveys. Obviously, the departmet of labor can't take 800,000 surveys. I'm not disputing the sample size of 60,000. What I'm disputing is who did they call for this survey...everyone man, woman , and child in North Dakota where unemployment is 3%???

I invite any and all Obamabots to justify this figure of 800,000 newly employed people when only 114,000 jobs were created. (And you can't justify this number by sayng "you're a racist" or "it's all George Bush's fault".)

The ADP survey is separate. The 114,000 comes from the CES survey done by BLS/Census. ADP reported an increase of 162k jobs.

The numbers can differ for many reasons, which the BLS explains here:

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.pdf

**NickTheCage** · 10-08-2012, 10:13 AM

Laff @ all this government propaganda in general. What about people who are unemployed but have given up looking for work and dropped out of the system, they don’t count?

Well where are they?

I guess they are on food stamps and other welfare programs. They don’t count or exist unless it comes to spending. So on one department, when it comes to government spending money we don’t have, they are on their rolls. On the propaganda side employment calculations, labor dept, bls, etc .. they don’t exist. We calculate a full time job the same way we calculate a part time job. We calculate a relatively permanent job the exact same way we calculate a temporary job.

Pathetic state of affairs that people believe this crap no matter who is in office.

**toxigal** · 10-08-2012, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by ADL

I invite any and all Obamabots to justify this figure of 800,000 newly employed people when only 114,000 jobs were created. (And you can't justify this number by sayng "you're a racist" or "it's all George Bush's fault".)

why on god's green earth would anyone try to explain it to you when you have already dismissed them as an "obamabot"?

**toxigal** · 10-08-2012, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Politburo

The ADP survey is separate. The 114,000 comes from the CES survey done by BLS/Census. ADP reported an increase of 162k jobs.

The numbers can differ for many reasons, which the BLS explains here:

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.pdf

in addition, the ADP survey asks if they are employed. More people appear to be answering that question "yes" if they have a part-time job.

**Politburo** · 10-08-2012, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by NickTheCage

Laff @ all this government propaganda in general. What about people who are unemployed but have given up looking for work and dropped out of the system, they don’t count?

Well where are they?

I guess they are on food stamps and other welfare programs. They don’t count or exist unless it comes to spending. So on one department, when it comes to government spending money we don’t have, they are on their rolls. On the propaganda side employment calculations, labor dept, bls, etc .. they don’t exist. We calculate a full time job the same way we calculate a part time job. We calculate a relatively permanent job the exact same way we calculate a temporary job.

Pathetic state of affairs that people believe this crap no matter who is in office.

U-4, U-5 and U-6 include those who have given up looking for work. The same U-6 number you cited in the 2nd post of this thread.

Once again your devotion to "real research" is evident.

**NickTheCage** · 10-08-2012, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by NickTheCage

Laff @ all this government propaganda in general. What about people who are unemployed but have given up looking for work and dropped out of the system, they don’t count?

Well where are they?

I guess they are on food stamps and other welfare programs. They don’t count or exist unless it comes to spending. So on one department, when it comes to government spending money we don’t have, they are on their rolls. On the propaganda side employment calculations, labor dept, bls, etc .. they don’t exist. We calculate a full time job the same way we calculate a part time job. We calculate a relatively permanent job the exact same way we calculate a temporary job.

Pathetic state of affairs that people believe this crap no matter who is in office.

Originally Posted by Politburo

U-4, U-5 and U-6 include those who have given up looking for work. The same U-6 number you cited in the 2nd post of this thread.

Once again your devotion to "real research" is evident.

And which number is the government propaganda machine championing?

What do they champion when inflation rates are released?

Once again your devotion to "government" is evident.