October Suprise #1: Unemployment Falls Below 8.0%

[AlbanyJet]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

200,000 jobs per month is baseline maintenance, 114,000 added is soft regardless of spin. The workforce is shrinking because once people's unemployment expires they aren't counted.

I think they are counted - but in the welfare and food stamps recipients population, no longer in the labor force which is why it dropped.

Which is to say, President Obama is obviously not creating jobs - he's creating statistics.

Worse, extended unemployment benefits end for everyone on 12/31/2012. Next year, 2013, is going to be a ROUGH year for the economy and jobs.

[Winstonbiggs]

The Jobs report is only one factor. Where Obama is getting a big boast is Stock prices and home prices are rising. This impacts people's net worth and people who's net worth improves general feel more optimistic about spending which helps demand. Those numbers are not being cooked and are on the rise.

[Warfish]

Housing Prices are going up in part due to the slow recovery, but also due to the massive amount of help all the defaulters are getting now, much of it on the taxpayers dime (or at least backed by taxpayer dimes).

Tis a shame....I'd hoped the market would stay low till I got the chance to buy my first home next summer. Instead, lots of folks are getting off, or getting Govt. supported/mandated better rates forgiving their mistakes, and buyers like me who saved, will pay higher prices down the road.

[AlbanyJet]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

The Jobs report is only one factor. Where Obama is getting a big boast is Stock prices and home prices are rising. This impacts people's net worth and people who's net worth improves general feel more optimistic about spending which helps demand. Those numbers are not being cooked and are on the rise.

Obama has created only a net 325,000 new jobs since he became President.

I think the people you describe are what were called the "swells" in the Great Depression of the 1930s. A group of people who were swell in every aspect of their lives. But the problem in the Great Depression of the 1930s was that too many Americans were living in poverty which prevented any further national economic growth. Similar to what we have now. Very similar.

The Bottom Line: Paltry 115,000 new September jobs is clearly not enough jobs to keep with population growth alone. Just another 325,000 new jobs in the next four years under Obama and we'll be in third world status.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by AlbanyJet

Obama has created only a net 325,000 new jobs since he became President.

I think the people you describe are what were called the "swells" in the Great Depression of the 1930s. A group of people who were swell in every aspect of their lives. But the problem in the Great Depression of the 1930s was that too many Americans were living in poverty which prevented any further national economic growth. Similar to what we have now. Very similar.

The Bottom Line: Paltry 115,000 new September jobs is clearly not enough jobs to keep with population growth alone. Just another 325,000 new jobs in the next four years under Obama and we'll be in third world status.

The largest demographic group in the country has just started hitting retirenment age. I suspect some of the job losses are the natural result of this large group starting to retire.

I also suspect regardless of who wins the Presidency that the fiscal cliff will be avoided. A cliff that in large part is the fault of Republicans who want to slash the budget when economic growth is virtually none existent.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

The largest demographic group in the country has just started hitting retirenment age. I suspect some of the job losses are the natural result of this large group starting to retire.

I also suspect regardless of who wins the Presidency that the fiscal cliff will be avoided. A cliff that in large part is the fault of Republicans who want to slash the budget when economic growth is virtually none existent.

Bingo. While I am 65 and retired years ago, most of my friends have retired this year. They and their wives. Big infusion into SS and BIG exclusion from employment totals.

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by AlbanyJet

Obama has created only a net 325,000 new jobs since he became President.

The U.S. President has never, and will never, "create jobs."

[AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

The largest demographic group in the country has just started hitting retirenment age. I suspect some of the job losses are the natural result of this large group starting to retire.

I can agree with this somewhat...

Poverty totals, entitlement recipients, etc... Those are still growing.

You can't explain that away with baby boomers...

[quantum]

Liberal economist Dean Baker, with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, called the September rate drop "almost certainly a statistical fluke."



'nuff said.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by quantum

Liberal economist Dean Baker, with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, called the September rate drop "almost certainly a statistical fluke."



'nuff said.

All liberals lie...according to you.

So there's that.

[AlbanyJet]

Analysis:

The September Household Survey - 873,000 Americans said they were working but 582,000 (66%) are working only part time.

66% of the .3% lowering in the UE rate down to 7.8% was due exclusively to part time jobs.

The September Business Survey - Pathetic 114,000 new jobs created when we need somewhere between 150,000-200,000 new jobs.

Conclusion:

No meaningful employment (full time) is being created under President Barack Obama.

[intelligentjetsfan]

The jobs numbers truther movement
By: Patrick Reis
October 5, 2012 03:05 PM EDT

A cadre of conservatives from Jack Welch to Allen West are crying conspiracy over Friday’s good economic news, accusing the White House of cooking the books to boost President Barack Obama’s prospects for reelection.

The word from Republicans who have worked with the jobs numbers before? Bunk.

“The numbers are put together by trained professionals and in a process that keeps politicians from interfering,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and a chief economic adviser to former President George W. Bush. “Any sort of suggestion to the contrary is wrong.”

Former Bush administration spokesman Tony Fratto took to Twitter to say: “Stop with the dumb conspiracy theories. Good grief.”

The Labor Department on Friday reported unemployment fell to 7.8 percent in September, the lowest level of Obama’s presidency.

That news — coming weeks before the election and days after Obama’s disappointing debate performance — was too good and too timely for some Republicans to believe.

“Somehow by manipulation of data we are all of a sudden below 8 percent unemployment, a month from the presidential election,” Florida Republican Rep. Allen West wrote on Facebook. “This is Orwellian to say the least and representative of Saul Alinsky tactics from the book ‘Rules for Radicals’ — a must read for all who want to know how the left strategize.”

Welch, the former head of General Electric lauded for his leadership skills, leveled his accusations on Twitter, joined by a smattering of conservative bloggers and pundits.

“Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers,” Welch tweeted.

Then Fox News pounced on the conspiracy, leading its website with the headline “JOBLESS RATE DIPS UNDER 8%, BUT IS THE NUMBER REAL?”

Friday afternoon Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) got in on the act, tweeting, “Not that I'm skeptical about today's unemployment report, but I bet they'd figure a way to hit 6.0 if we extended the election by 30 days.”

Welch didn’t back away from his accusation later in the day telling the Wall Street Journal: “I wasn’t kidding.”

Later Friday on CNN he said he should have added a “question mark” to his initial tweeted accusations, but said: “I’m not backing away, I’m not backing away from anything.”

The monthly jobs report produces a duo of headline numbers: a payroll jobs number and the rate of unemployment.

Friday’s flap — and Welch’s skepticism — mostly revolves around the drop in the unemployment rate from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent.

The unemployment rate is measured separately from the headline job number, the 114,000 reported Friday, and uses an alternate count of jobs that comes from a survey of households.

That household survey measured 873,000 jobs — way above the payroll jobs number result of 114,000, which comes from a survey of employers.

That gap drew the raised eyebrow from Welch.

“The economy doesn’t feel like it added 873,000 jobs in September,” he told the Journal. “There are a number of things here that are open to discussion.”

But economists say the gap between the payroll and household jobs count does not suggest foul play, but is rather a product of the statistical difficulty of counting jobs in a 300 million-person economy.

(Also on POLITICO: Mitt Romney drops '8 percent' line)

In July, for instance, the two surveys were nearly 400,000 jobs apart, this time with the payroll survey showing much greater growth than the tally used to compute the unemployment rate.

How they get the numbers

A look at the process used to get the numbers — as well as a bit of recent history — suggests the conspiracy claims belong in the same category as questions about Obama’s birth certificate.

The national unemployment rate is calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a nonpartisan agency composed of career economists and statisticians that currently employees zero political appointees.

The agency is typically directed by an appointee — the only appointed position in the entire organization — but that seat has sat vacant since Bush-pick Keith Hall left in January when his term expired.

The September figure came from a method identical to the one the bureau used to calculate previous months, said agency spokesman Gary Steinberg.

The figure always comes out on the first Friday of the month, and it is kept private from the White House until the evening before.

And even if the Obama administration has somehow been manipulating employment figures in a bid to gain an advantage, it has been doing a terrible job.

Friday’s jobs report noted that the July and August reports had underestimated job growth by a combined total of nearly 50,000 jobs.

And during a stretch from June 2011 to March 2012, every one of the bureau’s initial jobs report fell far short of its final estimate. The jobs figures are refined to reflect new information following the initial report, but by the time the final number comes out, the media has moved on.

Such was the case last summer, when Republicans dubbed Obama “President Zero” after the initial August report showed there had been no job growth. The final jobs figure for the month: 104,000.

But just because the numbers are honest, doesn’t mean they’re accurate.

The unemployment figure comes from a survey of 60,000 households that seeks to compare how many people have jobs with how many people are unsuccessfully looking for work.

That 60,000 is a large haul but a pittance when used to measure a nation of 300 million. Indeed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics publicly admits that they could be off by as much as 400,000 jobs one way or another.

Economists and sober-minded politicos said that the conspiracy theories are neither surprising nor new.

“This comes up all the time,” said Holtz-Eakin, who was also a top adviser to the McCain campaign in 2008. “This happened when I was in the Bush administration and it happens now.”

Seung Min Kim and MJ Lee contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 3:02 p.m. on October 5, 2012.

[Frequent Flyer]

"the biggest one month jump since June 1983."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz28WUtwvMA

Amazing!

The biggest one month jump in employment in 29 years, 4 weeks before the election.

LMAO

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

[Warfish]

The numbers are not fake.

As shown earlier in the thread, the number simply do not mean what people think (or say) they mean.

You can lose net jobs, and still have "unemployment" go down. Think about that for a while.

There is no conspiracy of any kind. There is only standard-issue Government accounting, where you MUST know what each number means, and what that numbers place in the grand scheme is, or else you'll start thinking spending $10 Trill instead of $9 Trillion is actually a "spending cut".

The best route would of course be to use OTHER emplyment numbers that more accurately reflect the actual number of working Americans vs. Non-Working.

But like all things Political, both parties prefer this U number, because both can spin it far easier than other U numbers.

For example, like right now.

[Jetdawgg]

The math and the counters are the same one's Bush used:

[Winstonbiggs]

Hard to see how the Dems can make the argument that the Republicans have completely stiffled the Democrats for 2 years and take credit for improving economic conditions.

I believe the economy is improving and it's improving because the government can't function. 4 more years of a do nothing President and Congress is exactly what this country needs.

[Jetdawgg]

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-...#ixzz28RAweEjR

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

Not bad. But isn't there usually a boost in the fall? Restaurants, retailers all gearing up for the holidays. Not sure how many of these jobs are permanent.

Hopefully the number continues to fall. But this is nothing to go crazy about.

I think we hired a lot of people this year to take money from Europeans.

Lotsa tourists. Overseas.


nvrmd

[WestCoastOffensive]

BTW why is my gas $4.99 a gallon? It's thrilling, to be sure, but...wtf refinery guy?

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive

BTW why is my gas $4.99 a gallon? It's thrilling, to be sure, but...wtf refinery guy?

I'll be on the lookout for you in the townhall debate.

the ponytail guy redux