Unemployment rate falls to 9.7 percent

#26
#26
I would assume this Bureau of Labor Statistics report uses the same data as previous reports have. Feel free to read the report here.
 
#27
#27
Since you went through the trouble of posting the link to the official report I assume you read the first sentence where net job losses were 20,000. It's impossible for there to be a net job loss and for employment to grow combined with the fact that Decembers job figures were revived down, and 2009 job losses were revived down by 800,000. I'd love to hear you theory on this.
 
#28
#28
VolInMn said:
I would assume this Bureau of Labor Statistics report uses the same data as previous reports have. Feel free to read the report here.
Click to expand...

I know what they are reporting - I'm trying to understand how losing jobs reduces the unemployment rate.

You are the one that is proud of this Obama accomplishment. The Obamessiah has either controverted the laws of mathematics or something is missing from these numbers.
 
#29
#29
lumberjack4 said:
Since you went through the trouble of posting the link to the official report I assume you read the first sentence where net job losses were 20,000. It's impossible for there to be a net job loss and for employment to grow combined with the fact that Decembers job figures were revived down, and 2009 job losses were revived down by 800,000. I'd love to hear you theory on this.
Click to expand...

the entire thing is numerator and denominator shenanigans. None of the numbers are worthwhile, save anecdotal evidence and are wrong as often as they're right.
 
#30
#30
The so-called "underemployment" rate--which includes everyone in the official rate plus those who are neither working nor looking for work, but say they want a job and have looked for work recently--fell to 16.5% in January from 17.3%.
Click to expand...
from WSJ today


So, it appears the number drop comes from the denominator shrinking as people give up (no longer say they are seeking a job or haven't looked for work recently).

Hooray - something to cheer. Discouraged workers deflate the unemployment rate. Congrats to the administration.

Here's an idea for the current admin: rapidly expand welfare and the unemployment rate will magically go down! Now I see why he says he will not rest until everyone that wants a job has one.
 
#32
#32
volinbham said:
from WSJ today


So, it appears the number drop comes from the denominator shrinking as people give up (no longer say they are seeking a job or haven't looked for work recently).

Hooray - something to cheer. Discouraged workers deflate the unemployment rate. Congrats to the administration.
Click to expand...

but this game always works this way. Those supporting the admin simply use the number that better supports their worldview. Almost ridiculous that we demand these be posted so quickly that adjustments of 800k people can actually happen.
 
#33
#33
kev20 said:
give obama some sort of nobel prize!
Click to expand...

he is hereby awarded the Fields Medal

Fields_Medal.jpg
 
#36
#36
VolInMn said:
Unemployment rate falls to 9.7 percent - Stocks & economy- msnbc.com

Once again, Obama is to blame for this!
Click to expand...

it's called disgruntled workers - unemployment goes down because they are no longer considered part of the labor force. As people give up searching for work, pick up part-time menial work, or go back to school to enhance their skills, unemployment will go down (even though there has been no gain - and maybe even a loss - of jobs).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#37
#37
The unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since August, primarily because a department survey of households found a sharp increase in the number of Americans with jobs. Analysts expected an increase to 10.1 percent.

A separate survey of businesses found that employers shed 20,000 jobs last month.

January's report offers hope that employers may start adding jobs soon. Excluding the beleaguered construction industry, the private sector as a whole added 63,000 positions.
Click to expand...

I guess that would explain it.
 
#39
#39
VolInMn said:
I guess that would explain it.
Click to expand...

but that has always been the case. Which do you find more believable, the one that extrapolates out over 150 million workers, or the one that rolls over businesses reporting info that they report on W-2s?
 
#40
#40
paul1454 said:
it's called disgruntled workers - unemployment goes down because they are no longer considered part of the labor force. As people give up searching for work, pick up part-time menial work, or go back to school to enhance their skills, unemployment will go down (even though there has been no gain - and maybe even a loss - of jobs).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I retract the above statement. Classic example of spouting something off before getting all the facts. After reading the article, that isn't what happened as the labor force apparently increased so it coulnt be digruntled workers.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#41
#41
paul1454 said:
I retract the above statement. Classic example of spouting something off before getting all the facts. After reading the article, that isn't what happened as the labor force apparently increased so it coulnt be digruntled workers.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That isn't true. The labor force increasing is based upon household surveys being extrapolated out over the working population. I can't think of a worse statistical measure being used today in economics reporting.
 
#42
#42
BigPapaVol said:
That isn't true. The labor force increasing is based upon household surveys being extrapolated out over the working population. I can't think of a worse statistical measure being used today in economics reporting.
Click to expand...

Right. I'm just saying the decrease can't be pegged to disgrundled workers. Rather, it goes to the margin of error in the survey. I just didn't want to get into that while typing on my phone - way too tedious.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#43
#43
BigPapaVol said:
the entire thing is numerator and denominator shenanigans. None of the numbers are worthwhile, save anecdotal evidence and are wrong as often as they're right.
Click to expand...

For my brother, the unemployment rate is 100%, starting this week. The 9.7 percent doesn't mean jack to him.
 
#44
#44
MWR said:
For my brother, the unemployment rate is 100%, starting this week. The 9.7 percent doesn't mean jack to him.
Click to expand...

exactly. The people who this stat most impacts are very well aware that unemployment is a too large number today.
 
#46
#46
can we all agree that the number of people working now is less than it was in December? and the number working in December is less than it was in November?

Isn't that the important number to focus on?
 
#47
#47
BeecherVol said:
Does that unemployment figure count those who are no longer drawing benefits, but are still unempolyed?
Click to expand...

No. Reagan's administration changed the way we count the unemployed to under-report it. Most of the economic numbers widely quoted, especially unemployment and GDP, are strictly propoganda.

It's safe to assume real unemployment is 50% more than quoted. A lot of good data suggests its 100% more.
 
#48
#48
BeecherVol said:
Does that unemployment figure count those who are no longer drawing benefits, but are still unempolyed?
Click to expand...

The above answer to your question is incorrect. The BLS unemployment rate is based upon a statistical survey and is completely independent of unemployment benefits. As a result, the figure can include those no longer receiving UI benefits. For example, someone no longer receiving UI benefits will be factored into the labor force and will be considered unemployed so long as they are still looking for work. On the flip side, Those receiving UI benefits might not be factored into the labor force if they are considered a discouraged worker.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#49
#49
utvolpj said:
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
Click to expand...

You're not. My company did it this time last year and there are rumors it is about to happen again.
 
#50
#50
volinbham said:
can we all agree that the number of people working now is less than it was in December? and the number working in December is less than it was in November?

Isn't that the important number to focus on?
Click to expand...

Uh no, "Saved jobs" is the key number. Dummy.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top