A really excellent jobs report!

[rudeguy]

Not likely in our lifetime; well, never has happened over here.


Well, you know, USSR did have 100% employment. :\

I don't see how anyone could be happy about a jobs report when tens of millions of people can't find a job. These are people, families, not just numbers on a report that is not even honest.

No I'm not "happy".

 

[fskimospy]

I don't see how anyone could be happy about a jobs report when tens of millions of people can't find a job. These are people, families, not just numbers on a report that is not even honest.

No I'm not "happy".

If you believe the report is 'dishonest' explain precisely what in it is dishonest.

Also, saying that you wouldn't be happy with a jobs report unless it describes a situation that has never existed in US history is ridiculous.

 

[rudeguy]

If you believe the report is 'dishonest' explain precisely what in it is dishonest.

Also, saying that you wouldn't be happy with a jobs report unless it describes a situation that has never existed in US history is ridiculous.

Hence why I'm never happy with these reports.

If people magically don't count towards the unemployment rate, even though they are unemployed, that report is not accurate. I'm not blaming the Democrats, it's always been made from fake numbers. But I don't see how anyone can be happy that there are millions of people who can't find work.

 

[Matt1970]

And capitalists don't. Because FreeMarket™.

You seem to have a lot of anger. You are going to fit in nicely amongst us.

 

[Fern]

If you believe the report is 'dishonest' explain precisely what in it is dishonest.
-snip-

If true that a "job" can be as little as one hour of work per week making at least $20, then yes, it can fairly be said to be dishonest. Particularly when cited alone and in the absence of other data.

E.g., a middle manager making $60K gets laid off. He ultimately takes 3 minimum wage part-time jobs totaling 30 hours a week. Excellent news! 3 new jobs were created!

Should we really accept such a loose definition of a "job"? Given that a "job" can be defined as something as insignificant as mowing one yard per week earning $20 can this report be relied upon to tell us anything of value?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

If true that a "job" can be as little as one hour of work per week making at least $20, then yes, it can fairly be said to be dishonest. Particularly when cited alone and in the absence of other data.

E.g., a middle manager making $60K gets laid off. He ultimately takes 3 minimum wage part-time jobs totaling 30 hours a week. Excellent news! 3 new jobs were created!

Should we really accept such a loose definition of a "job"? Given that a "job" can be defined as something as insignificant as mowing one yard per week earning $20 can this report be relied upon to tell us anything of value?

Fern

This just shows you don't know what's in the report. There are 6 different measures of unemployment.

It is so tiring to have people who have no understanding of this report try to talk about how it is worthless or dishonest.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't see how anyone could be happy about a jobs report when tens of millions of people can't find a job. These are people, families, not just numbers on a report that is not even honest.

No I'm not "happy".

I don't disagree, just saying. Point being: There is never been a time in this country "when everyone who wants a job, can get a job." There is always a certain level of unemployment, and isn't just "people who are lazy and don't want a job."

Sure, it's been easier in the past, and probably more people just moving from job to job, and far less long-term unemployment.

Understand that a market economy will never be able to employ everyone that wants a job. Doesn't work that way.

 

[ivwshane]

If true that a "job" can be as little as one hour of work per week making at least $20, then yes, it can fairly be said to be dishonest. Particularly when cited alone and in the absence of other data.

E.g., a middle manager making $60K gets laid off. He ultimately takes 3 minimum wage part-time jobs totaling 30 hours a week. Excellent news! 3 new jobs were created!

Should we really accept such a loose definition of a "job"? Given that a "job" can be defined as something as insignificant as mowing one yard per week earning $20 can this report be relied upon to tell us anything of value?

Fern

Once again you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Anyone who wishes to understand how the unemployment numbers are obtained can read it straight from the horses mouth and ignore all the other nonsense.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

 

[Fern]

This just shows you don't know what's in the report. There are 6 different measures of unemployment.

It is so tiring to have people who have no understanding of this report try to talk about how it is worthless or dishonest.

I'm familiar with the 6 different categories.

Explain how the above has anything to do with U-3 versus U-6.

Explain where the article you linked discusses U-1 through -U-6 etc. I see no mention of any "U" anything (other than them quoting numbers from one category without identifying it).

Explain why your article quotes U-3 only and cite a source that confirms one hour per week making at least $20 is NOT included in U-3.

I've asked this multiples times and you keep avoiding it by feigning misunderstanding on your part.

Tl;DR Please link a source that confirms U-3 data does NOT include/count jobs that are merely one hr per week making at least $20.

TIA

Fern

 

[rudeguy]

I don't disagree, just saying. Point being: There is never been a time in this country "when everyone who wants a job, can get a job." There is always a certain level of unemployment, and isn't just "people who are lazy and don't want a job."

Sure, it's been easier in the past, and probably more people just moving from job to job, and far less long-term unemployment.

Understand that a market economy will never be able to employ everyone that wants a job. Doesn't work that way.

I understand all that and my point remains.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm familiar with the 6 different categories.

Explain how the above has anything to do with U-3 versus U-6.

Explain where the article you linked discusses U-1 through -U-6 etc. I see no mention of any "U" anything (other than them quoting numbers from one category without identifying it).

Explain why your article quotes U-3 only and cite a source that confirms one hour per week making at least $20 is NOT included in U-3.

I've asked this multiples times and you keep avoiding it by feigning misunderstanding on your part.

Tl;DR Please link a source that confirms U-3 data does NOT include/count jobs that are merely one hr per week making at least $20.

TIA

Fern

U3 is the most commonly cited measure because it is the one that comports most closely with what we view as unemployment. It is in no way the first or last word on unemployment, nor does the report present it as such. News stories frequently mention different measures of employment as well. When you call a report dishonest because it doesn't include information that it does in fact include this is either willful ignorance on your part or deliberate dishonesty. There is no other explanation.

Don't blame the BLS for your own ignorance. it is your fault you don't know what you're talking about, not theirs.

 

[OverVolt]

You know... they represent it on the same line but its not actually comparable to past data because of the seasonal adjustments.

I wonder what the unemployment rate would be using the exact same methodology from the 1940's or something.

Looks like I found my answer.

The unadjusted data, interesting.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU0...s_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data

 

[nickqt]

You know... they represent it on the same line but its not actually comparable to past data because of the seasonal adjustments.

I wonder what the unemployment rate would be using the exact same methodology from the 1940's or something.

Looks like I found my answer.

The unadjusted data, interesting.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU0...s_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data

The only other time it ever hit 9.6 was in 1982/1987 except those recoveries were much faster.

Before the 1980s, the US used fiscal policy to get people back to work. Now that public jobs have been thoroughly demonized, we have to rely solely on PrivateSector™, blessed be its name.

 

[OverVolt]

Before the 1980s, the US used fiscal policy to get people back to work. Now that public jobs have been thoroughly demonized, we have to rely solely on PrivateSector™, blessed be its name.

sum ting wong

Next recession it hits 9.6+ again?

 

[nickqt]

sum ting wong

Next recession it hits 9.6+ again?

Depends on how effective the Wall St. criminals are in looting our financial system.

Perhaps when everyone else is afraid to hire workers because the economy is crumbling, we should let big gub'mint hire workers to fix the crap *(re: infrastructure) we usually let crumble because living in the first world means paying taxes, and we all know that taxes are inherently bad. Because Freedom.

 

[dmcowen674]

A really excellent jobs report!

250,000 new jobs, which is pretty decent.

In short, this is probably the best jobs report to happen in a long time.

Thanks Bush

Those Tax cuts for the rich finally paying off

 

[ivwshane]

Depends on how effective the Wall St. criminals are in looting our financial system.

Perhaps when everyone else is afraid to hire workers because the economy is crumbling, we should let big gub'mint hire workers to fix the crap *(re: infrastructure) we usually let crumble because living in the first world means paying taxes, and we all know that taxes are inherently bad. Because Freedom.

With companies continuing to do stock buy backs (another 80's excess) instead of investing in it's people, that will probably happen sooner rather than later. If history is any indication there will be a government hiring spree and it will be led by a republican president.

 

[werepossum]

Thats some amazing vision you have, to be able to read into what he said without even saying it. Thats like some xray stuff right there.

lol +1

I probably shouldn't have posted it; I just have difficulty not poking those suffering from Humorless Dick Syndrome. Call it a personal failing.

 

[Fern]

U3 is the most commonly cited measure because it is the one that comports most closely with what we view as unemployment. It is in no way the first or last word on unemployment, nor does the report present it as such. News stories frequently mention different measures of employment as well. When you call a report dishonest because it doesn't include information that it does in fact include this is either willful ignorance on your part or deliberate dishonesty. There is no other explanation.

Don't blame the BLS for your own ignorance. it is your fault you don't know what you're talking about, not theirs.

Still dodging the question as to whether any of the reported new jobs could merely be one hour per week making $20?

Why you dodgin' bro?

Fern

 

[nickqt]

lol +1

I probably shouldn't have posted it; I just have difficulty not poking those suffering from Humorless Dick Syndrome. Call it a personal failing.

Yes, I'm humorless because what you said makes no sense. You got me!!!

Still dodging the question as to whether any of the reported new jobs could merely be one hour per week making $20?

Why you dodgin' bro?

Fern

What does that have to do with anything, at all?

Is this all you have to criticize the U3 numbers? That Obama, Vincent Foster, and the Muslim Brotherhood are conspiring together to make the U3 numbers look better by counting 12 year olds mowing their neighbor's lawn?

Crikey. 2016 isn't going to be very fun for y'all.

 

[fskimospy]

Still dodging the question as to whether any of the reported new jobs could merely be one hour per week making $20?

Why you dodgin' bro?

Fern

I don't want you to mistake me dismissing your question because it is stupid for 'dodging' it. The absurdity of your example aside, if an unusual portion of the jobs created were people who worked a single hour that would be represented by a decrease in the average number of hours worked, which was also in the report and was unchanged at 34.6 hours/week.

Yet another case where you're saying not just that a report might be wrong, but that it is 'dishonest', which implies deliberate duplicity, all because you're clueless as to the subject matter.

So again, the BLS cannot be held responsible for your ignorance and/or dishonesty. Those things are your fault, not theirs.

 

[Jhhnn]

With companies continuing to do stock buy backs (another 80's excess) instead of investing in it's people, that will probably happen sooner rather than later. If history is any indication there will be a government hiring spree and it will be led by a republican president.

Who decries Big Gubmint & does the whole thing on borrowed money. The Repub base will fall at his feet.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, I'm humorless because what you said makes no sense. You got me!!!


What does that have to do with anything, at all?

Is this all you have to criticize the U3 numbers? That Obama, Vincent Foster, and the Muslim Brotherhood are conspiring together to make the U3 numbers look better by counting 12 year olds mowing their neighbor's lawn?

Crikey. 2016 isn't going to be very fun for y'all.

Well, yeh, but where's the birth certificate? Isn't that why the Ambassador was killed in Benghazi? Can't you recognize the insidious plot to institute Sharia Law?

To be serious, the jobs report indicates that we're trending in the right direction, even if that's mostly by accident. Rome must have been like this when the Visigoths left for wherever else they were going... Financial looting sprees (AKA the Ownership Society) have lasting consequences, too, proving that the pen is mightier than the sword.

 

[OverVolt]

Alot of places before they close down/do layoffs start paying alot of OT as their systems break down. Probably accounts for the rise in salaries. I've been doing OT on a regular basis in healthcare right now.

Just left a place doing 90 hours per pay and people at the new place are going like 120 hours biweekly. Doh.

Its not sustainable though hospitals are going to start closing down.