Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Unemployment rate in surprise drop from 8.1 to 7.8%
Friday, October 5, 2012 3:13 AM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Friday, October 5, 2012 4:47 AM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Friday, October 5, 2012 4:52 AM
Friday, October 5, 2012 6:17 AM
STORYMARK
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Meanwhile conservatives scramble to find conspiracy theories: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/05/966381/meet-the-conservatives-who-think-todays-job-numbers-are-a-conspiracy/
Friday, October 5, 2012 7:17 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Friday, October 5, 2012 7:33 AM
CAVETROLL
Friday, October 5, 2012 7:37 AM
Friday, October 5, 2012 7:48 AM
Friday, October 5, 2012 8:14 AM
Quote:California gas prices rose 17 cents a gallon overnight due to supply disruptions at some refineries and seasonally low inventories, bringing the one-week increase in the Golden State to nearly 36 cents. The average retail price of gasoline was $4.486. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/05/us-california-gasprices-idUSBRE89410320121005 wouldn't hurt him in CA anyway, we're solidly blue. And as always, a President doesn't determine gas prices, gas companies do. Gee, 'ya think there's a right-wing conspiracy at work, like the supposed left-wing conspiracy over unemployment figures? Unfortunately, I and many other lefties aren't given to such conspiracies...tho' since Big Oil sets gas prices, and they're solidly RED... ;o) Either way, the setting of gas prices is ALWAYS a conspiracy...we're used to the "supply disruptions" and "low inventories" here, which is patently actually "let's gouge customers for a while", especially when prices make a leap like that! Nothing new there. "Spinning", Troll? I think it was a quote from BBC news, not anyone here trying to spin anything, wasn't it? The article in question also contains various caveats as to why the numbers might be what they are. A fuller explanation can be found here:Quote:When you turn down the volume on all the political noise surrounding the report, however, what comes through is that the U.S. economy remains locked in a period of slow, steady job growth. “It’s consistent with a slowly improving labor market where a few extra people are coming into the labor market,” said Joel Naroff, economist with Naroff Economic Advisors. To understand why many economists might have that reaction, it helps to look at how the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates its job market data – and why economists pay much more attention to long-term trends than the month-to-month changes that tend to dominate political rhetoric. The unemployment data comes from two sources. The first is a representative household survey of about 60,000 American households, which is conducted monthly. The researchers count people as employed if they have worked in the past week, and they are considered unemployed if they haven’t worked but have actively looked for work in the past four weeks. The unemployment rate is not calculated based on who is collecting unemployment benefits. The household survey, from which that 7.8 percent unemployment rate was calculated, is considered valuable because it includes self-employed people and others who might not show up in the payroll survey. That’s the second source of data for the unemployment report. It’s compiled from a survey of about 141,000 businesses and government agencies, which account for about one-third of all nonfarm payroll employees. That’s the data that is used to calculate the payroll figure, which in Friday’s report showed that nonfarm payroll employment rose by 114,000 in September. The Bureau of Labor Statistics takes great pains to warn people that only relatively large changes in each set of data are considered statistically significant. For the payroll survey, a change of about 100,000 is considered statistically significant, and for the household survey a statistically significant change would be about 400,000, according to the BLS. “The labor force numbers do bounce violently around,” Naroff said. For example, Naroff noted, the civilian labor force grew by 418,000 in September, but it shrank by 368,000 in August. If you look over a long period, the trend is much more stable, with slightly more than 1 million people in the labor force than a year earlier. That’s why even though politicians may focus on month-to-month changes, economists are often more interested in the long-term trends. In that context, Friday’s employment report number was consistent with a labor market that has slowly and painfully been working its way back to life. “This is encouraging stuff,” said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist with Capital Economics. Ashworth noted that the unemployment rate has fallen by half a percentage point in the last two months, from 8.3 percent to 7.8 percent. But the unemployment rate was also at 8.3 percent in January, and it is down from 9 percent a year earlier. He said it’s not uncommon for job market data to move out of step with other economic data. In a research note, economist Dean Baker with the liberal-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that it’s common to have big monthly swings in the employment data, and said the September report may well be a statistical fluke. “Still,” he added, “this month’s numbers almost certainly indicate that the unemployment rate is moving downward, even if the speed is considerably slower than the latest data indicate.” The White House released a statement Friday saying the employment report marked progress in the nation's slow economic recovery. http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14242968-jobless-rate-drop-no-big-surprise-despite-the-political-racket?lite
Quote:When you turn down the volume on all the political noise surrounding the report, however, what comes through is that the U.S. economy remains locked in a period of slow, steady job growth. “It’s consistent with a slowly improving labor market where a few extra people are coming into the labor market,” said Joel Naroff, economist with Naroff Economic Advisors. To understand why many economists might have that reaction, it helps to look at how the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates its job market data – and why economists pay much more attention to long-term trends than the month-to-month changes that tend to dominate political rhetoric. The unemployment data comes from two sources. The first is a representative household survey of about 60,000 American households, which is conducted monthly. The researchers count people as employed if they have worked in the past week, and they are considered unemployed if they haven’t worked but have actively looked for work in the past four weeks. The unemployment rate is not calculated based on who is collecting unemployment benefits. The household survey, from which that 7.8 percent unemployment rate was calculated, is considered valuable because it includes self-employed people and others who might not show up in the payroll survey. That’s the second source of data for the unemployment report. It’s compiled from a survey of about 141,000 businesses and government agencies, which account for about one-third of all nonfarm payroll employees. That’s the data that is used to calculate the payroll figure, which in Friday’s report showed that nonfarm payroll employment rose by 114,000 in September. The Bureau of Labor Statistics takes great pains to warn people that only relatively large changes in each set of data are considered statistically significant. For the payroll survey, a change of about 100,000 is considered statistically significant, and for the household survey a statistically significant change would be about 400,000, according to the BLS. “The labor force numbers do bounce violently around,” Naroff said. For example, Naroff noted, the civilian labor force grew by 418,000 in September, but it shrank by 368,000 in August. If you look over a long period, the trend is much more stable, with slightly more than 1 million people in the labor force than a year earlier. That’s why even though politicians may focus on month-to-month changes, economists are often more interested in the long-term trends. In that context, Friday’s employment report number was consistent with a labor market that has slowly and painfully been working its way back to life. “This is encouraging stuff,” said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist with Capital Economics. Ashworth noted that the unemployment rate has fallen by half a percentage point in the last two months, from 8.3 percent to 7.8 percent. But the unemployment rate was also at 8.3 percent in January, and it is down from 9 percent a year earlier. He said it’s not uncommon for job market data to move out of step with other economic data. In a research note, economist Dean Baker with the liberal-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that it’s common to have big monthly swings in the employment data, and said the September report may well be a statistical fluke. “Still,” he added, “this month’s numbers almost certainly indicate that the unemployment rate is moving downward, even if the speed is considerably slower than the latest data indicate.” The White House released a statement Friday saying the employment report marked progress in the nation's slow economic recovery. http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14242968-jobless-rate-drop-no-big-surprise-despite-the-political-racket?lite
Friday, October 5, 2012 9:49 AM
HERO
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Good timing: A pretty mediocre September, but previous months have been strongly boosted - they were not as bad as was thought.
Friday, October 5, 2012 9:53 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Good timing: A pretty mediocre September, but previous months have been strongly boosted - they were not as bad as was thought. Good timing. 850,000 people entered the workforce of whom a little over 100,000 got jobs...somehow that justifies the biggest one month drop in the rate in decades two days after the worst debate performance in...decades by the guy whose campaign the Bureau of Labor Statistics folks are contributing to... H Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
Friday, October 5, 2012 10:13 AM
WULFENSTAR
http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg
Friday, October 5, 2012 10:45 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Why is it not surprising that the you do not understand how the unemployment rate is calculated?
Friday, October 5, 2012 10:48 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: It takes a liberal to explain how seven times more new people looking for jobs then who got jobs is a net decrease.
Friday, October 5, 2012 10:57 AM
Friday, October 5, 2012 11:02 AM
Quote:Originally posted by WULFENSTAR: 47%
Quote:You take government handouts? FUCK YOU, YOU ARE A LOSER. DIE OR HAVE USE.
Friday, October 5, 2012 11:12 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:Originally posted by CaveTroll: But even if these numbers were true, it's still above the point where Carter and GHW Bush and Ford were not re-elected. Try spinning faster.
Friday, October 5, 2012 11:17 AM
Quote:Originally posted by WULFENSTAR: Unlike you Story, I know veterans, elderly, and the handicapped.
Friday, October 5, 2012 11:25 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: That's true. It takes a liberal to explain how seven times more new people looking for jobs then who got jobs is a net decrease. Especially since last months fall came because a huge number left the workforce then who got jobs. If workforce participation numbers now were what they were in Jan of 2009 then the unemployment rate would be over 11%. Oh, the change in how employment numbers are calculated...2009.
Friday, October 5, 2012 11:47 AM
Quote:Originally posted by WULFENSTAR: "You hear that Veterans, the Elderly, the Handicapped? - Wulfie wants you to die." Unlike you Story, I know veterans, elderly, and the handicapped. Difference being, the ones I know are able to make it on their own. They don't need handouts, they don't need your type to keep going. They can make it on their own. I don't insult them by saying they are so pitiful that they need help. I honor them by treating them as equals... and truth be told, I am a bit awed as to them doing as well/or better than I. "None of you seem to understand. I'm not locked in here with you... YOU are locked in here with ME."
Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:37 AM
Saturday, October 6, 2012 8:19 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Why is it not surprising that the you do not understand how the unemployment rate is calculated? That's true. It takes a liberal to explain how seven times more new people looking for jobs then who got jobs is a net decrease. Especially since last months fall came because a huge number left the workforce then who got jobs. If workforce participation numbers now were what they were in Jan of 2009 then the unemployment rate would be over 11%. Oh, the change in how employment numbers are calculated...2009. H Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
Quote:In Virginia on Friday, Mitt Romney said that “if the same share of people were participating in the work force today as on the day the president got elected, our unemployment rate would be around 11 percent.” Is it true? Yes, but you’d have to assume that all of the growth in the number of labor force dropouts is a result of discouragement about the job market, as opposed to other factors like the wave of baby boomers now hitting retirement age. If you had the same labor force participation today as you did in January 2009 (65.7 percent, instead of today’s 63.6 percent), that would bring the total number of people in the labor force up to about 160 million, instead of about 155 million. Then if you assumed that those five million people you added into the labor force didn’t get jobs, that would bring the total number of unemployed people up by five million, to a total of about 17 million. That would bring the overall unemployment rate to 10.7 percent. This exercise, though, assumes that the entire drop in the labor force participation rate from January 2009 to the present is a result of discouraged people giving up on looking for work. It ignores the fact that the baby boomers are hitting retirement age, meaning that demographics would probably bring down the labor force participation rate even if the economy were booming. Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, estimates that half of the decline in the labor force participation rate “can be traced to an aging population.” The calculation above also ignores the fact that a higher share of young people are going to college, and are staying out of the work force temporarily while they improve their skills. Because of these factors, it’s hard to know what the “right” labor force participation rate should be right now. It should probably be higher than the 63.6 percent recorded for September — since there are indeed a lot of discouraged workers out there who want to work but have given up looking — but we don’t know precisely how much higher.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012 4:21 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: First of all, we aren't there yet.Quote:California gas prices rose 17 cents a gallon overnight due to supply disruptions at some refineries and seasonally low inventories, bringing the one-week increase in the Golden State to nearly 36 cents. The average retail price of gasoline was $4.486. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/05/us-california-gasprices-idUSBRE89410320121005 wouldn't hurt him in CA anyway, we're solidly blue. And as always, a President doesn't determine gas prices, gas companies do.
Quote:California gas prices rose 17 cents a gallon overnight due to supply disruptions at some refineries and seasonally low inventories, bringing the one-week increase in the Golden State to nearly 36 cents. The average retail price of gasoline was $4.486. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/05/us-california-gasprices-idUSBRE89410320121005 wouldn't hurt him in CA anyway, we're solidly blue. And as always, a President doesn't determine gas prices, gas companies do.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012 4:30 AM
Tuesday, October 9, 2012 5:59 AM
Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:06 AM
Quote:Sticker-shocked Californians are getting out their (tiny) kazoos to celebrate today – that’s because gas prices all over the state edged down slightly overnight.
Quote:"Californians are, unfortunately, no strangers to manipulated energy prices," wrote Congresswoman Hahn in a letter to the FTC. "Californians deserve to know whether the record-breaking gas prices they are being made to suffer at the pump are due to market forces or greed." In fact, the California Energy Commission often sees requests like this when price spikes happen, says spokesman Rob Schlichting. While the 2001 scandal over manipulation of the energy market by Enron was a dramatic confirmation that such deceptive strategies have occurred, “most of these investigations come up empty,” he says. Gas is one of the few traded commodities that have continually done well over the past few years, says Michael Gonzales, a marketing consultant for the oil and gas industry in Fort Worth, Texas. “Because it's traded highly, the prices follow. But more than that, because gas has a high demand [the] world around, companies have discovered they can charge a premium and people will still pay.” In such a context, Californians have an added burden: The reason gas prices in California are so high is because taxes are so high, says Jeremy Anwyl, vice chairman of the automotive website, Edmunds.com., in Santa Monica, Calif. “Consumers absorb higher gas prices,” he adds via e-mail, “so there is initial distress when gas prices jump, but we learn to live with it.” http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2012/1010/California-gas-prices-take-a-dip-amid-calls-to-investigate-the-spike
Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:31 AM
Quote:Fewest Americans Since Feb. 2008 Seek Jobless Aid The number of Americans seeking unemployment aid plummeted to 339,000 last week, the lowest level in more than four years. The sharp drop offered a hopeful sign that the job market could pick up. The Labor Department says weekly applications fell by 30,000 to the lowest level since February 2008. The four-week average, a less volatile measure, dropped by 11,500 to 364,000, a six-month low. Applications are a proxy for layoffs. When they consistently drop below 375,000, it suggests that hiring is strong enough to lower the unemployment rate. The decline adds to other evidence that hiring is improving. Last week’s jobs report showed the unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent, the first time it has fallen below 8 percent since January 2009. http://business.time.com/2012/10/11/fewest-americans-since-feb-2008-seek-jobless-aid/?lid=edit
Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:03 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Troll makes me laugh...you're comparing the prices at a FOOD MART with the real price??? You have to look long and hard to find that price in California--you forget, I LIVE HERE. I tank my car regularly, I pass dozens of gas stations; even the non-generic ones don't have prices that high! What's funniest of all is that you could think high gas prices would cost Obama in CALIFORNIA! They don't come much more blue, he's a lock here, and Californians know damned well who sets gas prices--hint, it ain't the Prez! Around here, most people actually use their BRAINS about stuff like that, strange as that might sound to you.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL