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

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,453
8,455
136
Because democrats never, ever lobbied that lending standards should be loosened under the banner of dismantling "discrimination" in the banking industry when it came to lending standards for home loans.

:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyqYY72PeRM
That wasn't the question. They wanted specific legislation that contributed to the melt down and they provided it.

If you want discuss why that legislation didn't contribute to the melt down then do it but saying "dems do it too" doesn't address the original question/request.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,677
482
126
With 600,000 of those jobs Government Jobs. Thats not productive to the American economy seems to be the other way around . or Money isn't real and everyone is pretending it is . They have to be pretending none can be that stupid Those 600,000 jobs covers 2 months the last 2
lol. You seriously believe the government added 600,000 jobs in the last 2 months? Unless 900,000 people retired without anyone noticing, I assure you that isn't the case.
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Link

14.7 vs 7.8

If you have doubts about the official jobless rate, there's another rate you can check out instead--the "real" unemployment rate, which measures everybody considered unemployed plus a lot of others who are falling through the cracks.

The government calls this the "U-6" rate, and it has become a source of considerable intrigue lately. Some critics of President Obama contend that the government keeps the "real" rate a secret, because it reveals an economy that's in far worse shape than the official unemployment rate suggests. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says frequently that while the official unemployment rate may be improving, the real rate is still terrible. "If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force," Romney said in a recent statement, "the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11 percent."

It may be even higher than that, depending on how you count. The official unemployment rate fell in September from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent, which is good news for Obama heading into the last few weeks before the November elections. The unemployment rate is now 2.1 percentage points below its 2009 peak, and at the same level as when Obama took office.
But Romney is correct to suggest that the official rate doesn't capture the depth of pain in the labor market. His rate, of nearly 11 percent, comes from an extrapolation involving the percentage of adults considered to be part of the labor force. But the government's own U-6 measure is even higher, at 14.7 percent. That's the percentage of adult Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, too discouraged to look for work or "marginally attached" to the labor force.

<snip>
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
That wasn't the question. They wanted specific legislation that contributed to the melt down and they provided it.

If you want discuss why that legislation didn't contribute to the melt down then do it but saying "dems do it too" doesn't address the original question/request.
You see, I missed this when I had you on timeout. I agree 100% with the last sentence. It's never a good idea to defend yourself by saying that somebody else does it too.

Now the question is how significant was Bush's signed legislation in creating the bust? Looking at the numbers I'd say probably not that much.

FY2008 - $10,000,000
FY2007 - $24,750,000
FY2006 - $24,750,000
FY2005 - $49,600,000
FY2004 - $86,933,113
FY2003 - $74,457,526

Assuming the worst case scenario where everybody who took part in this plan wouldn't have otherwise had gotten a mortgage.

Assuming an average of $10,000 for a down payment we come up with 27k loans that were made again assuming that every dollar went to homeowners.

Assuming that the average house cost $100k that would give us a grand total of $2.7 Billion-$270 million= $2.40 billion dollars of bank financed loans were made as a direct result of this bill.

Then assume that every single person who participated defaulted and you still only get $2.4 billion in bad loans.

I don't think $2.4 billion dollars of defaulted loans is going to have a significant effect on whether or not the meltdown occurred. Plus the number is probably lower than this since I assumed every person who took part of this program defaulted when they most likely didn't.

Conclusion: Bush's policy of expanding home ownership was not a significant factor in causing the housing collapse.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,699
47
91

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444897304578046260406091012.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop



Some questions allow for unambiguous answers, but others less so. For instance, the range for part-time work falls between one hour and 34 hours a week. So, if an out-of-work accountant tells a census worker, "I got one baby-sitting job this week just to cover my kid's bus fare, but I haven't been able to find anything else," that could be recorded as being employed part-time.
I posted the same link in the Jack Welsh thread. I will quote the same pertinent content here as well.

In August, the labor-force participation rate in the U.S. dropped to 63.5%, the lowest since September 1981. By definition, fewer people in the workforce leads to better unemployment numbers. That's why the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% in August from 8.3% in July.

Meanwhile, we're told in the BLS report that in the months of August and September, federal, state and local governments added 602,000 workers to their payrolls, the largest two-month increase in more than 20 years. And the BLS tells us that, overall, 873,000 workers were added in September, the largest one-month increase since 1983, during the booming Reagan recovery.

These three statistics—the labor-force participation rate, the growth in government workers, and overall job growth, all multidecade records achieved over the past two months—have to raise some eyebrows. There were no economists, liberal or conservative, predicting that unemployment in September would drop below 8%.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71


"Unlike the employment-to-population ratio, average work hours have largely recovered since 2009. Earlier this year, the average hours series reached 100, which was its value for much of 2007.

To put it another way, 93 percent of the people who would have been employed in an economy such as we had in 2007 are employed today and are likely to feel that they are as busy with work today as they were then. The other 7 percent are not working at all."


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/the-asymmetric-recovery/



"But the employment-population ratio is influenced by important factors beyond the control of the president. One of them is the aging of the baby boomers. The employment-population ratio was expected to fall as baby boomers reached retirement ages between 2008 and 2015, even without a recession. For this reason alone, a full recovery would mean an employment-population percentage of about 61."


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/the-baby-boom-and-economic-recovery/?ref=business

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/10/understanding-decline-in-participation.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+Risk%29

"one great statistic is most of these businesses are operating at about 70% or 80% of the 2007 peak in revenue. their profitability is back to 2007/2008 levels. because they cut the heck out of jobs. yes. 30% fewer people working in these jobs. and automation ( http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012...teal-your-job/ taken out tons of jobs ). the old belly to belly salesman is replaced with an ipad and other information. we don't have to have all these people chasing inventories. the stories of productivity are incredible in these plants. you're not going to get some of those old jobs back. unless you get big demand. because you've got to put more people in the street for that. but in general, the stories are the same. oh, we're recovering. yeah, we're back to 75% of where we were in '07. but our profits are back to where they were. but we're 30% down in people. it's a common theme. business after business after business."


http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000117011&play=1 (specific comments are around 2:40 mark, but I recommend starting at 1:40 point for greater context)

Obama Win Is Management Lesson to All: Welch


CNBC.com | November 05, 2008 | 07:50 AM EST


Barack Obama's victory in the presidential election should serve as a management lesson, as he opened up new "markets" during his campaign, former General Electric CEO and management guru Jack Welch told CNBC Wednesday.

"If you look at management skills as being execution, as one of the real issues, this guy demonstrated without question the best execution I've ever seen in a political campaign," Welch said.

"He came from a basement startup to build an organization that was flawless--demonstrated in the culmination in Chicago last night with one of the most impressive rallies, or celebrations, one could ever see. This is a manager. This is a real manager."

Obama's win caps a string of victories dating back to primary elections nearly a year ago in which he defeated Sen. Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic Party nomination.

"He did something that's a management lesson for everyone," Welch told "Squawk Box." "Most managers do the same thing over and over again, they do what I call the milk run. They call on the same clients, they use the same speeches."

"This guy opened up new markets, while Hilary Clinton was doing the milk run. He went out and circled around her, he did market development like you've never seen and did a management job that every manager in the world should look at," Welch explained.

"No one has quite ever seen a campaign so flawlessly executed," he said.

The challenge is now for Obama not to give in to demands from the extreme left, Welch said.

"He's going to have pressures from the left that are so strong." he said. "The question is, can he hold the line."


http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/27552782
(that video clip has been erased from CNBC website, as far as I can tell).
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71
Fed Beige Book just released:

- lack of highly skilled labor in several districts

- few districts see on the job training programs increasing :thumbsup: (I read this as some businesses are seeing enough demand that lack of new workers holding back growth and profit, to such an extent that they are willing to take on risk and train new employees for open spots). This is a good sign, irrespective of whomever ends up being elected president on Nov. 6.

- residential real estate widespread improvement




edit: found this
Employment, Wages, and Prices

"Employment conditions were little changed since the last report. The Boston, Cleveland, Atlanta, Minneapolis, and Dallas Districts indicated that employment levels were flat or up slightly, with stagnant demand and uncertainty related to the upcoming presidential election, U.S. fiscal policy, and European debt issues cited by some as restraining hiring. The New York and Chicago Districts noted weaker labor market conditions, and conditions were described as mixed in Richmond. Firms in the St. Louis District reported an increase in hiring plans. Several Districts continued to report that employers were having difficulty filling highly skilled positions. In response, a few Districts noted that firms were starting to increase training programs to meet their staffing needs.

Most Districts reported that wage pressures remained modest since the last report, though an increase in the cost of employee medical benefits was noted in Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Chicago. To the extent that wage increases were observed, they were concentrated among highly skilled workers in information technology, health care, professional services, and some of the skilled trades, according to reports from the Chicago, Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Francisco Districts.

Price pressures were said to be contained as most Districts reported that both finished goods and input prices were little changed since the last report. Higher prices were cited by some Districts for agricultural commodities and petroleum-based products, although low or declining natural gas prices were reported in the Atlanta, Kansas City, Dallas, and San Francisco Districts. Contacts in the Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas City, and Dallas Districts noted that drought conditions continued to result in higher feed prices. There were scattered reports of higher crop prices starting to show through to food prices at the consumer level. Atlanta reported an increase in corn and soybean prices, while Chicago and Kansas City reported that these prices declined somewhat. Slightly lower prices for some technology-related products were reported in the San Francisco District."


http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/beigebook/beigebook201210.htm
 
Last edited:

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,021
9
81
Does anyone know why it takes the Census an extra 30 days to release the indivual microdata for the survey used to calculate the unemployment rate.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,824
0
0
Jack expands on his prior comments...

Updated October 10, 2012, 10:03 a.m. ET

Jack Welch: I Was Right About That Strange Jobs Report

The economy would need to be growing at breakneck speed for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% in the course of two months.

By JACK WELCH

Imagine a country where challenging the ruling authorities—questioning, say, a piece of data released by central headquarters—would result in mobs of administration sympathizers claiming you should feel "embarrassed" and labeling you a fool, or worse.

Soviet Russia perhaps? Communist China? Nope, that would be the United States right now, when a person (like me, for instance) suggests that a certain government datum (like the September unemployment rate of 7.8%) doesn't make sense.

Unfortunately for those who would like me to pipe down, the 7.8% unemployment figure released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last week is downright implausible. And that's why I made a stink about it.

Before I explain why the number is questionable, though, a few words about where I'm coming from. Contrary to some of the sound-and-fury last week, I do not work for the Mitt Romney campaign. I am definitely not a surrogate. My wife, Suzy, is not associated with the campaign, either. She worked at Bain Consulting (not Bain Capital) right after business school, in 1988 and 1989, and had no contact with Mr. Romney.

The Obama campaign and its supporters, including bigwigs like David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, along with several cable TV anchors, would like you to believe that BLS data are handled like the gold in Fort Knox, with gun-carrying guards watching their every move, and highly trained, white-gloved super-agents counting and recounting hourly.

Let's get real. The unemployment data reported each month are gathered over a one-week period by census workers, by phone in 70% of the cases, and the rest through home visits. In sum, they try to contact 60,000 households, asking a list of questions and recording the responses.

Some questions allow for unambiguous answers, but others less so. For instance, the range for part-time work falls between one hour and 34 hours a week. So, if an out-of-work accountant tells a census worker, "I got one baby-sitting job this week just to cover my kid's bus fare, but I haven't been able to find anything else," that could be recorded as being employed part-time.

The possibility of subjectivity creeping into the process is so pervasive that the BLS's own "Handbook of Methods" has a full page explaining the limitations of its data, including how non-sampling errors get made, from "misinterpretation of the questions" to "errors made in the estimations of missing data."

Bottom line: To suggest that the input to the BLS data-collection system is precise and bias-free is—well, let's just say, overstated.

Even if the BLS had a perfect process, the context surrounding the 7.8% figure still bears serious skepticism. Consider the following:

In August, the labor-force participation rate in the U.S. dropped to 63.5%, the lowest since September 1981. By definition, fewer people in the workforce leads to better unemployment numbers. That's why the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% in August from 8.3% in July.

Meanwhile, we're told in the BLS report that in the months of August and September, federal, state and local governments added 602,000 workers to their payrolls, the largest two-month increase in more than 20 years. And the BLS tells us that, overall, 873,000 workers were added in September, the largest one-month increase since 1983, during the booming Reagan recovery.

These three statistics—the labor-force participation rate, the growth in government workers, and overall job growth, all multidecade records achieved over the past two months—have to raise some eyebrows. There were no economists, liberal or conservative, predicting that unemployment in September would drop below 8%.

I know I'm not the only person hearing these numbers and saying, "Really? If all that's true, why are so many people I know still having such a hard time finding work? Why do I keep hearing about local, state and federal cutbacks?"

I sat through business reviews of a dozen companies last week as part of my work in the private sector, and not one reported better results in the third quarter compared with the second quarter. Several stayed about the same, the rest were down slightly.

The economy is not in a free-fall. Oil and gas are strong, automotive is doing well and we seem to be seeing the beginning of a housing comeback. But I doubt many of us know any businessperson who believes the economy is growing at breakneck speed, as it would have to be for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% over the course of two months.

The reality is the economy is experiencing a weak recovery. Everything points to that, particularly the overall employment level, which is 143 million people today, compared with 146 million people in 2007.

Now, I realize my tweets about this matter have been somewhat incendiary. In my first tweet, sent the night before the unemployment figure was released, I wrote: "Tomorrow unemployment numbers for Sept. with all the assumptions Labor Department can make..wonder about participation assumption??" The response was a big yawn.

My next tweet, on Oct. 5, the one that got the attention of the Obama campaign and its supporters, read: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers."

As I said that same evening in an interview on CNN, if I could write that tweet again, I would have added a few question marks at the end, as with my earlier tweet, to make it clear I was raising a question.

But I'm not sorry for the heated debate that ensued. I'm not the first person to question government numbers, and hopefully I won't be the last. Take, for example, one of my chief critics in this go-round, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the Obama administration's Council of Economic Advisers. Back in 2003, Mr. Goolsbee himself, commenting on a Bush-era unemployment figure, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: "the government has cooked the books."

The good news is that the current debate has resulted in people giving the whole issue of unemployment data more thought. Moreover, it led to some of the campaign's biggest supporters admitting that the number merited a closer look—and even expressing skepticism. The New York Times in a Sunday editorial, for instance, acknowledged the 7.8% figure is "partly due to a statistical fluke."

The coming election is too important to be decided on a number. Especially when that number seems so wrong.

Mr. Welch was the CEO of General Electric for 21 years and is the founder of the Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer University.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71


"As we have noted recently, the flows between employment and unemployment provide a reasonable amount of information about short-term changes in the unemployment rate. When inflows into unemployment are low and outflows from unemployment are high, the headline unemployment rate has a tendency to decline, and vice versa. In particular, the "flow-consistent" unemployment rate--calculated as the rate at which the actual rate would settle over time if the inflow and outflow rate stayed unchanged--is a decent leading indicator for the actual rate. As recently as three months ago, this simple model was pointing to modest increases in unemployment. Now, however, it is again pointing to declines, as shown in Exhibit 2."


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-10/goldman-reality-jobs-market



ADP jobs report has show strength, Yahoo Finance commentator was saying Household Survey may be picking up small business hiring that Establishment Survey (larger corporations?) is not yet (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/unemployment-dips-stocks-rip-hiring-blip-154000158.html) Challenger Grey layoff report has been at recession lows for quite some time, and initial jobless claims have stabilized at lower level. Morningstar economist Bob Johnson in previous months also noted pick up in small truck sales recently, which he said is consistent with new small business formation (IIRC).

Fact that Fed Beige Book report shows that some employers are actually ramping up on the job training programs suggests that these companies see what they think is durable enough incremental demand to risk capital to pay to train people to fill open high skill positions they need to grow their businesses.


Morningtar economist Bob Johnson also said he thought it looks like employers might have gotten too cautious in August, and are now playing catch up (he said that in another article I read)
Stipp: So, what do you think the trend would have been if we had seen the results smoother or maybe a more accurate reflection that doesn't get distorted by some of the month-to-month things that can happen?

Johnson: Well, in terms of rate, I think we would have fallen from the mid-8% to 8%, and &#8230; I think we still would have been below 8% this month; I think we'd be at about 7.9%. And I think we are set up to see a [trend of] 7.8%, 7.7%, 7.6% for the rest of the year. I think we're going to see a continued fall in that number.

Stipp: So, you are saying it probably would have still come down but more gradually. We just happened to get it back-loaded a little bit because of some quirks in the data?

Johnson: The quirks and students going back to school is basically what it is. That's what really messed with the numbers."


http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=569632
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/10/ges-jack-welch-on-bls-book-cooking/

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/09/news/companies/colvin_ge.fortune/index.htm




(There is apparently an investigation of GE's role in financial crisis going on now, and Romney administration might conveniently make that go away).
Wow, no wonder Jack is so invested in the race. I hope he goes to jail.
Jack left 2000/2001, he has nothing to do with it from what I can see.

I think it would be Jeffrey Immelt, who took over from Jack and is an Obama adviser.

Fern
 
Last edited:

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71




"In August 2000 GE's shares were fetching $60 apiece. On April 24th, the man who succeeded Mr Welch last summer, Jeffrey Immelt, held his first shareholders' meeting. That morning, GE's shares had sagged below $33, valuing the company at $268 billion less than its worth at its peak. &#8220;GE is a company with an underperforming share price,&#8221; Mr Immelt confessed to his shareholders. &#8220;I hate where our stock price is today.&#8221; Not that he is taking all the flak. As GE's share price has taken a bashing, so has Mr Welch's reputation. Commentators who marvelled at his 20 years in charge now tut and shake their heads. Suddenly, GE stands accused of all sorts of shenanigans. In March, one of the most prominent buyers of its $100 billion of commercial paper, Bill Gross of PIMCO, a fund-management group, accused the company of dishonesty and said he would cease to buy its short-term debt. The price of GE's $233 billion of debt promptly fell, pushing up the company's interest costs. GE's new interest costs reflect more accurately the true riskiness of the company, argues Mr Gross. GE's reputation rests on the superb management of its industrial businesses, from aircraft engines to light bulbs. But in truth, argues Mr Gross, GE is at bottom a financial company, open to the same set of risks as any other financial firm. What sets GE apart, he says, is that its risks are disguised.

GE's reported profits continue to grow at an impressive pace. But some analysts and investors worry that the company's profits growth is, in fact, slowing. GE also has a long-standing reputation for &#8220;managing&#8221; its earnings, by taking money from one pocket and putting it into another. Depending on your sympathies, GE does this either to help smooth reported earnings (and therefore to disguise all that hidden riskinesss), or to demonstrate more clearly to investors the growth of the company's underlying businesses.

Add these worries together, and you get another: having become adept at one form of earnings management, GE may have succumbed to another, more malignant form, and is now covering up slowing growth by earning money in ways it says it is not. Because GE is so big and runs so many financial businesses, only a handful of its top people properly know the answer to that question. One thing is clear, however: GE is not exactly behaving like a company with nothing to hide."
http://www.economist.com/node/1111969
 
Last edited:

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
lol. You seriously believe the government added 600,000 jobs in the last 2 months? Unless 900,000 people retired without anyone noticing, I assure you that isn't the case.
\


I donn't care. It was in the video more than once and the reporter did not take issue with it as you say , Frankly that was the most important part of the report . The fact the reporter tried to push it aside only proves he is a demonic shill and not anywhere close to a standard that good reporters hold themselves to .
 
Last edited:

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71
It's still Jack Welch's legacy, and he presumably still has stock in the company.

He has motivations that go beyond simple politics and idealogy.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
Because democrats never, ever lobbied that lending standards should be loosened under the banner of dismantling "discrimination" in the banking industry when it came to lending standards for home loans.

:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyqYY72PeRM
Its odd I have never seen that video befor . I found it disturbing tho .. The 1992 part I new already . But every person in that video who was full of shit was either black or gay . These are thee superior minded demons LOL
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
lol. You seriously believe the government added 600,000 jobs in the last 2 months? Unless 900,000 people retired without anyone noticing, I assure you that isn't the case.
No they never tell us how many retired only that a new hire was made. dishonest asswipes the people of our gooberment
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71



"But even still, there is a lot of room for error. The BLS estimates that the standard error for the unemployment rate is 0.1 points. That means that the margin of error, like that you&#8217;d use for polls, is about 0.196 points:

It&#8217;s higher for changes in the unemployment rate &#8211; the standard error is 0.12, so the margin of error is around 0.2352. But the drop in unemployment last month was 0.3 points &#8211; so outside the margin of error, and statistically significant. As former Labor Department economist Betsy Stevenson explains, that&#8217;s a clear improvement."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/05/september-jobs-report-where-do-these-numbers-come-from/





Goldman sees 175k/mo average also:






http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-10/goldman-reality-jobs-market



Among Deloitte's findings:

  • Skills college students attain are out of date by five years after graduation.

  • About two-thirds of manufacturers say there is a shortage of available and qualified workers; 56 percent say the shortage is going to get worse in the next three to five years, and about 600,000, or 5 percent, of jobs remain unfilled "due to a lack of qualified candidates."

  • The problem is exacerbated by an aging workforce, with about 40 million workers 55 and older to be in the employment pool by 2013.
Deloitte researchers William D. Eggers and John Hagel concluded that the U.S. is badly lagging behind other leading industrialized nations in developing workers with the skills necessary to fit the changing workplace."


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/real-thing-holding-back-jobs-171536096.html
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY