Unemployment rate falls to 9.7 percent

#2
#2
why would he not be to blame when he promised it wouldn't break 8% if we spent the stimulus?
 
#3
#3
Does that unemployment figure count those who are no longer drawing benefits, but are still unempolyed?
 
#4
#4
well considering they cut the constellation project, a lot of people are possibly going to be jobless here at msfc.
 
#5
#5
Let me get this straight. The country has a net job losses in the month of Jan and unemployment goes down? You can't possibly believe this administrations math on anything. Look at their spendalous math.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#6
#6
two factors:

record number of people who have stopped looking for work which lowers the unemployment number. payroll's DROPPED. i.e. the real umemployment rate went up.

what's helping a little is that the census dept is hiring about $2 mil people.

real unemployment rate is around 16%.
 
Last edited:
#8
#8
lumberjack4 said:
Let me get this straight. The country has a net job losses in the month of Jan and unemployment goes down? You can't possibly believe this administrations math on anything. Look at their spendalous math.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

"The unemployment rate dropped from 10 percent because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000." (From the FOX News article, btw.)

541,000>20,000. Makes sense to me.




droski said:
two factors:

record number of people who have stopped looking for work which lowers the unemployment number.

census dept is hiring about $2 mil people.

real unemployment rate is around 16%.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Census has only hired around 9,000 people so far. It could go as high as 1.2 million, not 2 million.

"The federal government has begun hiring workers to perform the 2010 census, which added 9,000 jobs. That process could add as many as 1.2 million jobs this year, though they will all be temporary." (Again, from the FOX News article)
 
#9
#9
i'm willing to bet that some ppl that were laid off were baby boomers. some of these baby boomers that were laid off have prolly quit looking for jobs and have started taking their social security payments.
 
#10
#10
9.7% is still 2.3% more than W's highest unemployment rate of 7.4%

the unemployment rate in Jan 2002 was 5.7%

so go ahead and trumpet Obama's 9.7% after a year in office.
 
#11
#11
the economy lost 20,000 jobs this month. ridiculous that people get to play with the numbers like this to make it look like unemployment dropped.
 
#12
#12
VolInMn said:
"The unemployment rate dropped from 10 percent because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000." (From the FOX News article, btw.)

541,000>20,000. Makes sense to me.






Actually, the Census has only hired around 9,000 people so far. It could go as high as 1.2 million, not 2 million.

"The federal government has begun hiring workers to perform the 2010 census, which added 9,000 jobs. That process could add as many as 1.2 million jobs this year, though they will all be temporary." (Again, from the FOX News article)
Click to expand...

Is that a permanent job?

Or will they be looking for a job, after this is complete.

The good thing about government jobs, is when the budget needs cutting, they will have more options they can cut now. :ermm:
 
#13
#13
just yesterday it was estimated the number of unemployed people in this country was underestimated by 800,000

Recession's job losses likely to rise by nearly 1 million - Feb. 4, 2010

But the department has already given a preliminary look at this Friday's revision, and it says it believes it will show 824,000 fewer workers on payrolls than the current estimates. That would be the biggest downward revision in the 30 years for which comparisons of those adjustments is possible.
 
#14
#14
Vol Mania 21 said:
i'm willing to bet that some ppl that were laid off were baby boomers. some of these baby boomers that were laid off have prolly quit looking for jobs and have started taking their social security payments.
Click to expand...

my company had many choose an early retirement package instead of going thru the next round of lay-offs. Not sure how those numbers would be added up either. Can't believe we're the only ones doing it
 
#15
#15
Sorry buddy, but the official labor report shows a net loss of 20,000 jobs in the month of January. Barry is playing a shell game with America's unemployed to try to sell his failure of a presidency. If you look at the number of people who have just plain given up, since the stimulus worked so well we have an unemployment rate of ~16%.
 
#17
#17
To oklavol's point:

Meantime, nonfarm payrolls fell by 20,000 compared with a revised 150,000 decline in December. Economists had expected payrolls to be flat. The December figure was revised down sharply from an originally reported 85,000 drop.

Last year, job losses were almost 600,000 more than previously reported, the revisions showed.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704533204575046960669803550.html
 
#18
#18
MG1968 said:
9.7% is still 2.3% more than W's highest unemployment rate of 7.4%

the unemployment rate in Jan 2002 was 5.7%

so go ahead and trumpet Obama's 9.7% after a year in office.
Click to expand...

Certainly one can see how the unemployment trend changed as soon as Obama took office, right?



Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

LNS14000000_92266_1265385656254.gif
 
#19
#19
please explain to me how you can defend a guy who spent $1 trillion to "save jobs," yet we have seen the highest unemployment since the great depression. do you really think that trillion was efficiently spent? if so, what evidence do you have to support that claim.
 
#21
#21
These numbers don't make sense to me.

We lost jobs but the unemployment rate goes down? This could be the result of:

1) people stop looking thus aren't counted but that number went down as well (from 17 something to 16 something)

2) the total potential workpool shrank - it couldn't have changed that much in one month to have a reduction in jobs actually create an increase in the employment rate.

So what's missing from these numbers?
 
#22
#22
VolInMn said:
Certainly one can see how the unemployment trend changed as soon as Obama took office, right?


LNS14000000_92266_1265385656254.gif
Click to expand...

You have some major assumptions in here:

1. we have trend data - the graph is actually pretty linear expect at the very last data points. If you look over the graph you will see blips that are not in line with overall trends.

In short, a change in the last data point or two is insufficient to determine a significant change in the trend line.

2. there's an underlying assumption that last few data points WOULD NOT look like this without Obama policies. There is no proof of that.
 
#23
#23
quite a few of my friend's SO got laid off and basically they made the decision as a couple that the laid off person would stop looking for work and would stay at home with the kids since daycare is so expensive anyway. i'd be willing to bet this happens all over the country.
 
#24
#24
droski said:
quite a few of my friend's SO got laid off and basically they made the decision as a couple that the laid off person would stop looking for work and would stay at home with the kids since daycare is so expensive anyway. i'd be willing to bet this happens all over the country.
Click to expand...

I thought this was included in the "true" number that has been around 17.3%.

What's odd is that this number also dropped to 16.5% or something like that.

Somewhere, these numbers are leaving out unemployed. They have to be or a net reductions in jobs could not result in a % reduction in both these numbers unless the total number of people that serve as the base for these % decreased (eg. population shrank)
 
#25
#25
i'm fairly sure if you say you left the labor force for childcare reasons that that isnt' included in the true number as well.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top