• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Unemployment falls to 7.8% (but only 114,000 job added?)

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,210
8,159
136
At some point your going to ask yourself why you bellieved the lies . Than you will beat yourself over your own stupidity
Says the guy who thought 47% of the nation is on food stamps until 10 minutes ago...
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,624
20,368
136
more labor participation number smoke and mirrors. And how many are actually full time not part time jobs?? Yet another structured liberal deception supported by media willing accomplices.
what, no eco-kooks and dopers?


I am disappoint.

:(
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
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.
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.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
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.
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.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,624
20,368
136
Depends on the promises made, the money spent, and the exact situation.

Could be that Reagan's "recovery" was better or worse.
Reagan didn't have to deal with a completely new economic base that was hemorrhaging redundant, non-existent jobs in unprecedented numbers.

I mean "non-existent" because we are now a finance, research and design-based economy. We still had a strong manufacturing and low-skill labor need in the 80s. What we are now, wasn't quite emerging in the 80s, though it was certainly on its way. Reagan did a lot to create this, but he was basically dealing with a recovery that would allow laid-off workers to go back to the same jobs they previously inhabited.


Now, the vast majority of jobless remain jobless because their sector no longer exists. This sector had been running on fumes for two decades, well overstretching its limit by 2007. When the labor force senesces itself into the same trap of unimproved, low-skilled labor, such recovery is extremely difficult when trying to return to a labor force that you no longer qualify for.

And why do corporations see the greatest profits, over these 4 years of "economic disaster" than they have ever seen, and why do they refuse to hire these workers back?

well, they are hiring workers to fill these jobs. Just not in the US....
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,479
428
126
Hah - 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.
The sad thing is that if Mitch "human turtle" McConnel didn't make this his policy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gM-1HbK4qU&feature=related

then maybe the jobless rate would've been lower sooner and some of the elements in jobs bills that have been proposed involved infrastructure maintenance and improvement. Those jobs are definitely not "McFries" jobs.


Reagan didn't have to deal with a completely new economic base that was hemorrhaging redundant, non-existent jobs in unprecedented numbers.
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.
 
Last edited:

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Is that because you guys just know in your gut that this country can't create jobs with a Muslim in the White House?
:rolleyes:

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?
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.

I wouldn't care who was in office, at times this is mentioned in media outlets however it is never part of the big focus the first weeks of the month.

And for the record I pray to whichever god has the most power to let Obama win another term. Romney getting elected would just piss me right off.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
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.
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.

If I am wrong please enlighten me, because from what I have saw and read online or on the news was that this number only counts the amount of people drawing unemployment.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71
There are like 2 million people born every year.
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.

And as others above have pointed out, there have been a secular decline in manufacturing for quite some time, and also a construction boom and bust that ultimately was just stealing jobs and demand from the future:










http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/09/07/1151091/us-payrolls-and-past-as-predictor-for-construction-and-manufacturing-employment/
 
Last edited:

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
If things keep improving, which they tend to do around October/November, Obama's got this election in the bag. Debates won't matter if unemployment stays below 8% and hovers closer to 6-7%.
 

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,310
0
71
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.
include immigrants? a couple hundred thousand come here every month.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
If things keep improving, which they tend to do around October/November, Obama's got this election in the bag. Debates won't matter if unemployment stays below 8% and hovers closer to 6-7%.
So you think the unemployment rate will drop 1.5% this month o_O
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
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.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
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... :rolleyes:
The numbers are calculated the same; the data to feed the numbers has changed; but the output still shows the same.

If a part time job counts the same stat wise as a full time job; then 1M part timers under Obama working 20-39 hours is the same as 1M full timers work 40+ under some previous admin.

Both affect the stats the same; however, one is much better for the economy than the other.

Also, the creation of 1M burger jobs is not the same as the creation of 1M machinists value wise for the economy.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,210
8,159
136
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.
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.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,917
173
106
I think it a good idea to allow some time for analysts to sift through the data before drawing any firm conclusions. I saw a little of the business news at lunchtime and there seemed to be some head scratching over the numbers from the housing survey. I also thought I heard them mention the revised numbers would out just before the election.

Fern
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY