The seasonal hiring bounce is not generally seen in September numbers, and certainly not in July/August which were revised upward in this report. September hasn't been a big bounce up month in the previous years either. The part time emphasis here is most likely a bounce in permanent part time employment. It's worth mentioning that there's a lot of part time in there, but it's not likely seasonal.Seasonal hiring jumps the stats towards the end of the year. You can see that by the jobs mostly being part time. These jobs include retail and harvest hiring. It does help obamas campaign somewhat, but its not like people are going to forget the last 4 years of unemployeement numbers.
Labor force participation went up slightly in September. This was not a month where unemployment went down because people quit looking for jobs. Nor was that true in July or August either. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here.I hate people still use these numbers they don't mean shit. They should factor in the people who dropped off unemployment benefits plus those still on it.
It's way higher than 8 percent.
Reagan didn't have to deal with a completely new economic base that was hemorrhaging redundant, non-existent jobs in unprecedented numbers.Depends on the promises made, the money spent, and the exact situation.
Could be that Reagan's "recovery" was better or worse.
I am confused by the relevance of "2%." What does that number mean here?The total number of jobs in the United States is just under 134 million. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics's site 2009.*
So if you divide 134 Mil by 114K does that equal 2% or more? I dont think so.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_Total_number_of_jobs_in_US#ixzz28RrDWHmM
The sad thing is that if Mitch "human turtle" McConnel didn't make this his policyHah - Obama finally delivers when it comes to getting the unemployment rate below 8%. One more empty Romney talking point has just been put to death.
Reagan also didn't have to deal with an opposing party in Congress that wanted him to bend all the way to their side without giving much (if anything at all) in return.Reagan didn't have to deal with a completely new economic base that was hemorrhaging redundant, non-existent jobs in unprecedented numbers.
Is that because you guys just know in your gut that this country can't create jobs with a Muslim in the White House?
Those numbers worked fine in normal times but when countless people are on unemployment for the entire term and still can't find work they get off the roster and are no longer counted.Lemme ask, if this is the standard that has been used for quite some time now, why does it need to be changed right now?
Or do you just want it changed in general to have a better informed public?
It doesn't have to be, but those people should still be counted. When the media tells me unemployment is under 8 percent it automatically makes me assume exactly what it says which is wrong.Labor force participation went up slightly in September. This was not a month where unemployment went down because people quit looking for jobs. Nor was that true in July or August either. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here.
According to Morningstar economist Bob Johnson, population growth recently has only growing about 0.7% - 0.8%, while historically it has been as high as 1.5%.There are like 2 million people born every year.
include immigrants? a couple hundred thousand come here every month.According to Morningstar economist Bob Johnson, population growth recently has only growing about 0.7% - 0.8%, while historically it has been as high as 1.5%.
Probably why you hear 100,000 - 125,000 jobs need to be created each month in BLS report to keep up with new entrants into work force. The 250,000 number I think is for the ADP report, and again we don't know what underlying population growth that assumes.
2.3% real GDP growth might in some way be equivalent to 3% real GDP rate of growth now vs. historical norm, also because of decreased population growth.
Regarding seniors, they are staying in labor force later than they have done previously, taking away jobs that would normally go to the youth (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0902/The-silver-collar-economy). Some may have never saved enough in investments to retire, and others just got walloped like everyone else when stock market crashed in 2008.
The numbers are calculated the same; the data to feed the numbers has changed; but the output still shows the same.At some point you will realize how the numbers are calculated (pst the same way they have been for years, even when they made Bush look good) and that they don't get cooked by the POTUS, the democrats, the republicans, or the Libroool Media...
I think the word you are looking for is "Then" btw genius...
Where do you live that 1 in 4 people you know who want to work can't find a job. Of the hundreds of people I know, I only know 1 person right now who can't find work. Actually, scratch that, he found a shit minimum wage job until he can find a job in his profession.It must be Enron's old accountants who come up with these phony unemployment numbers. To get America's real unemployment rate, which is probably somewhere between 15 and 25 percent, down to 7.8 percent must take every accounting trick in the book.