Unemployment fell

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Patranus

LOL - I like this one more

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com...mployment-stimulus.JPG

I'm fucking glad that you enjoy seeing people lose their jobs all in the name of "it's not my side in control right now". :roll:

PatsAnus is like Rushbo; he wants the US to fail so Obama's approval rating will tank.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Patranus

LOL - I like this one more

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com...mployment-stimulus.JPG

I'm fucking glad that you enjoy seeing people lose their jobs all in the name of "it's not my side in control right now". :roll:

PatsAnus is like Rushbo; he wants the US to fail so Obama's approval rating will tank.

In all honesty, there were many here from Dem side that wanted the same thing when Bush was in office. It's piss poor no matter who is in power as it's peoples lives here, not just a fucking statistic (but I understand your point).

 

[Patranus]

Interesting...

In June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the civilian labor force was 154,926,000 people.

In July, 796,000 of those were taken out of their definition of the workforce, and thus their unemployment calculations for this month, because they have stopped looking for work "because they believe no jobs are available for them." Ten percent of the June workforce would be 15.4 million, 1 percent would be 1.5 million, and so 796,000 is roughly one half of one percent.

http://campaignspot.nationalre...A1ZmIwMzc3MmMxNzEzYWM=

I guess if you change the definition of "unemployed" this is good news.

 

[Moonbeam]

War is peace.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Unemployment rate fell to 9.4 percent in July. Pace of job loss slowed to 247,000 -- beating analyst expectations.

http://www.cnn.com

Reading this news, I'm wondering - is there anyone still at this point who still feels things could get worse, or we could re-test the lows we saw in the market once again? Most recessions in the past and have had at least two or three "ups and downs", and so far we've only had one down and now climbing back up. If unemployment numbers are getting better, and so are economic indicators (apparently), does that mean we're almost to the point of being past this, or will things turn again?

Unemployment fell by .1%? Somebody break out the champagne bottles. Obama did it! We're saved. The recession is over!!!!!!!

 

[cubeless]

wait until they 'revise' the number in a month...

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: cubeless
wait until they 'revise' the number in a month...

They 'revised' the report before the report came out by change the definition of 'unemployed' in July.

Cooking the books???

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It is meaningful that people stopped looking for jobs; they won't thus help the GDP with their earnings, but I always wonder who gives up looking for a job? I mean really, talk about sad. That's just pitiful, even if you've been out of work for 12 months what are you doing then? Just going to eat worms out of the grass or something?

You should read up on the various definitions of "unemployment" the government uses. The essence of it is that, even if you're desperate and you're looking and want a job, they'll still classify you as "marginally attached" or some such bullshit in order to make the U3 ("official unemployment") rate look better.

Here, use this handy flowchart:
http://www.nakedhedgefund.com/...oyment-rate-flowchart/

Interesting, even this "U-6 unemployment number" dropped according to the BLS
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It is meaningful that people stopped looking for jobs; they won't thus help the GDP with their earnings, but I always wonder who gives up looking for a job? I mean really, talk about sad. That's just pitiful, even if you've been out of work for 12 months what are you doing then? Just going to eat worms out of the grass or something?

You should read up on the various definitions of "unemployment" the government uses. The essence of it is that, even if you're desperate and you're looking and want a job, they'll still classify you as "marginally attached" or some such bullshit in order to make the U3 ("official unemployment") rate look better.

Here, use this handy flowchart:
http://www.nakedhedgefund.com/...oyment-rate-flowchart/

Interesting, even this "U-6 unemployment number" dropped according to the BLS
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

Yes, again, they changed the meaning of 'unemployed' in July.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It is meaningful that people stopped looking for jobs; they won't thus help the GDP with their earnings, but I always wonder who gives up looking for a job? I mean really, talk about sad. That's just pitiful, even if you've been out of work for 12 months what are you doing then? Just going to eat worms out of the grass or something?

You should read up on the various definitions of "unemployment" the government uses. The essence of it is that, even if you're desperate and you're looking and want a job, they'll still classify you as "marginally attached" or some such bullshit in order to make the U3 ("official unemployment") rate look better.

Here, use this handy flowchart:
http://www.nakedhedgefund.com/...oyment-rate-flowchart/

Interesting, even this "U-6 unemployment number" dropped according to the BLS
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

Yes, again, they changed the meaning of 'unemployed' in July.

How did they change it?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: her209
How did they change it?

See my post several posts ago.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It is meaningful that people stopped looking for jobs; they won't thus help the GDP with their earnings, but I always wonder who gives up looking for a job? I mean really, talk about sad. That's just pitiful, even if you've been out of work for 12 months what are you doing then? Just going to eat worms out of the grass or something?

You should read up on the various definitions of "unemployment" the government uses. The essence of it is that, even if you're desperate and you're looking and want a job, they'll still classify you as "marginally attached" or some such bullshit in order to make the U3 ("official unemployment") rate look better.

Here, use this handy flowchart:
http://www.nakedhedgefund.com/...oyment-rate-flowchart/

Interesting, even this "U-6 unemployment number" dropped according to the BLS
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

Yes, again, they changed the meaning of 'unemployed' in July.

You're a moron. They didn't change the meaning of "unemployed," they have always used that definition.

 

[judasmachine]

Lets just hope this turns into a trend. One shot doesn't mean we are out of the hole, but I really hope this represents a light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[BarneyFife]

Unemployment rate going down.
Stock market going up.

Obama is doing an excellent job. I'm glad we outnumber the right wing wackos so we can push our health care through in the fall so we can finally help the working class.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: CPA
It's nice to see the government can add 7,000 people to their payroll though.

It takes manpower to track the pork and make sure that it is not being used for purposes that are not intended.

Fluss vs substance

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: senseamp
Economy is improving y'all Face it, even if you hate Obama, it's good for America.

The economy improving IS good for America and has nothing to do with Obama, if it is actually happening. These numbers prove nothing since we still lost over 200K net jobs so this number is rather dubious. Obama IS bad for America. People are finally starting to figure this out.

Stimulus is working. Happy days are here again.

I believe that the stimulus is not generating long term jobs. It was intended to generate pork spending, advance spending by the states up (preplanned) or act as a stop gap loss to government job layoffs.

Pork creates short term jobs - and there may not be enough to actually complete the project
Advance spending is work that was already budgeted for - just get the work done sooner.
the budgeted money will be moved into future projects or absorbed into the general fund to cover deficits.
Stop Gap job loss will only work until the funds run out. Unless tax $$ come in those jobs will go away again - just postponing the pain.

The stimulus's like pushing the car by hand before letting out the clutch on a dead battery. Hopefully, you have enough momentum to start the engine.

Given the type of $$ that the stimulus targeted (rules placed on the use of funds), it is questionable if it will have the desired long term effect. The economy has to work its way out of the bubbles that exploded, The stimulus may help a little, bu tit should not get the credit for recovery.

An example is the cash for clunkers - encouraging people to take on more debt and artificially adjusting the market is not good when the marketplace is so unstable.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Unemployment rate going down.
Stock market going up.

Obama is doing an excellent job. I'm glad we outnumber the right wing wackos so we can push our health care through in the fall so we can finally help the working class.

You do not want it pushed through.

If there is going to be one; it needs to be properly planned to not screw the middle class that will be footing the bill.

You can not expect the poor to pay for it. and there is not enough from the "rich" to cover the costs.then how does one define rich - 100K, 250K, 500K, 1M income?
Remember that taxes on not supposed to be raised on the middle class to cover the UHC package!

The funds (it will not be free/neutral) are going to come from the workers and employers
that are already spending money on such.

Unless costs can be controlled; you are robbing Peter again to take care of Paul.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Interesting...

In June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the civilian labor force was 154,926,000 people.

In July, 796,000 of those were taken out of their definition of the workforce, and thus their unemployment calculations for this month, because they have stopped looking for work "because they believe no jobs are available for them." Ten percent of the June workforce would be 15.4 million, 1 percent would be 1.5 million, and so 796,000 is roughly one half of one percent.

http://campaignspot.nationalre...A1ZmIwMzc3MmMxNzEzYWM=

I guess if you change the definition of "unemployed" this is good news.

Well at least Obama didn't come strutting out and say "The Economy is strong" like your hero.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Well at least Obama didn't come strutting out and say "The Economy is strong" like your hero.

Nor is he making ridiculous and dire predictions like $10/gal gas like some people....

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Well at least Obama didn't come strutting out and say "The Economy is strong" like your hero.

Nor is he making ridiculous and dire predictions like $10/gal gas like some people....

Hang in there there, we hit my $5 mark. They are still shooting for $8

Not a far stretch to hit Europe's $10 from there.

It's all be design. What do you think Cash for Clunkers is for?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: her209
How did they change it?

See my post several posts ago.

Even your National Review link explicitly states the BLS has not changed how they define employment...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: her209
How did they change it?

See my post several posts ago.

Even your National Review link explicitly states the BLS has not changed how they define employment...

But Pat your ass said it so it has to be true

 

[alchemize]

So Dave these numbers are fake, and unemployment is much worse, right?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alchemize
So Dave these numbers are fake, and unemployment is much worse, right?

They are clearly missing at least a million people but at least they are say they are missing at least a million people unlike the lying Republicans.

Are you declaring the "Economy strong?"

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Well at least Obama didn't come strutting out and say "The Economy is strong" like your hero.

Nor is he making ridiculous and dire predictions like $10/gal gas like some people....

Hang in there there, we hit my $5 mark. They are still shooting for $8

Not a far stretch to hit Europe's $10 from there.

It's all be design. What do you think Cash for Clunkers is for?

That's funny, the national average never hit $5/gallon and I never saw $5/gallon locally.

You don't even remotely know what you're talking about.