about that 7.8 unemployment number

[dogtowner]

lets think about that a moment shall we ?

there was a reported 144,000 net jobs added. I'm happy for those folks.

but the explination given is...

The rate declined from 8.1 percent because the number of people who said they were employed soared by 873,000 — an encouraging sign for an economy that's been struggling to create enough jobs.

The number of unemployed Americans is now 12.1 million, the fewest since January 2009.

so 873,000 now have a job but the net is 144,000 meaning 730,000 lost their jobs to produce that net. Since 150,000 net plus is roughly treading water and 250,000 to move the dial, how is it that the rate can drop ?

Only one way. People leaving the workforce.

Same reason for the gradual decline the past few years but by magic it drops 3/10ths on a modest increase. Expectedly this report fails to report that number nor does it point out that 800,000 or so of those hires were part time positions. You know, part time headcount that does not count on Obamacare's metrics for coverage.

Seems there is no bar so low they will not slither under in this election. And heck mwhy not ? If they lose and their shenanigans are exposed who cares ? They'll all be gone to their reward. They have little to lose unless some strange new ardor comes over DC in terms of ethics and people start going to jail.

 

[Cruella]

I was watching the financial guru's before the numbers came out. They had the top twenty five financial experts who follow this stuff say the numbers would come in between 8.1 and 8.2.

According to Obama, this is supposed to be the biggest drop in 30 years. Give me a break. Someone is cooking the books.

 

[dogtowner]

I was watching the financial guru's before the numbers came out. They had the top twenty five financial experts who follow this stuff say the numbers would come in between 8.1 and 8.2.

According to Obama, this is supposed to be the biggest drop in 30 years. Give me a break. Someone is cooking the books.

drops are a good thing when they are the result of significant jumps (up) in employment. 144k is not a significant jump. so we have misinterpreted data and, I've no doubt a long planned for cooking of the books.

 

[Cruella]

drops are a good thing when they are the result of significant jumps (up) in employment. 144k is not a significant jump. so we have misinterpreted data and, I've no doubt a long planned for cooking of the books.

This 7.8 number is from a household survey. That sounds like a poll, and we know what they do with polls.

 

[dogtowner]

This 7.8 number is from a household survey. That sounds like a poll, and we know what they do with polls.

Household is not "the number" that is reported monthly so if they've taken it upon themselves to switch its even more troubling. establishment is the standard.

Household at least as its been done in the past is a somewhat better gauge as it gets a better look at independent contract workers (plumbers. IT contractors etc). there was a trend in business some years ago to use contract help to more easily adjust to ups and downs without having to deal with govt red tape.

 

[Gipper]

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.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8046260406091012.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines