Do we call this, "Just in time unemployed numbers"

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2012 12:31:53 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Oct 5, 2012 12:09:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am sure that FOX and Romney will be switching to Labor Participation Rate, now. moving targets are always helpful when the stationary ones are taken down by hostile fire.

I still consider U-3 a recently moved target as the recently "looked for work" stipulation was added to it during this administration. What would the % be if that wasn't changed and it was reported the same as all previous years.

like Driftr, i would be interested in reading about this as well.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2012 12:36:42 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Oct 5, 2012 12:31:53 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I still consider U-3 a recently moved target as the recently "looked for work" stipulation was added to it during this administration. What would the % be if that wasn't changed and it was reported the same as all previous years.

Really? I honestly didn't know that. Moving target indeed.

Driftr- it appears you are right about Johnson's claims. that is very disappointing. i will start looking for another candidate tonight. i have a couple that interest me.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2012 12:24:08 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Oct 5, 2012 12:22:18 GMT -5 oped said:

Romney, whose wife hasn't worked by choice in years and years, is going to pick on the labor partiicpation rate? .... If more mammas are choosing to stay home with their wee ones, how is that a bad thing for family values

Great for family values.

Bad for deficits if we're going to continue putting out the same services with lower tax receipts.

i wish i had your talent for concision.

[Driftr]

Oct 5, 2012 12:39:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 5, 2012 12:24:08 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Great for family values.

Bad for deficits if we're going to continue putting out the same services with lower tax receipts.

i wish i had your talent for concision.

Comes in handy as an accountant. Less so as a husband and father.

[cme1201]

The reported payrolls growth figure for September, 114,000 jobs, was incredibly close to consensus forecasts of about 115,000 jobs added. But everything else about the report considerably beat expectations. Jobs figures were revised upward by 40,000 in July, and by 46,000 in August. Combined with the jobs growth in September, that means the economy added 200,000 more jobs than we thought previously.

My math may be rusty but I don't think it is.

They expected 115k got 114k in the month of September - 1k less than anticipated.
They revised July by 40k
They revised August by 46k
Doesn't this mean that they added only 85k more than they thought NOT 200k?

[rockon]

Just hilarious to see the dumbocrats immediately use an improvement in unemployment in their stump speech's as confirmation that their policies are working but consistently down played any discussion or responsibility when they were going up. Of course the opposition party does the same thing as well and are now claiming the numbers were fixed. That's why so many people are just tired of politics in general. (1) I keep hearing that this is the lowest unemployment number in four years but wasn't 7.8 the number it was when Obama took office in January 2009? (2) Have they changed the way the number is reported or determined?

[skweet]

Assuming their is not an error in the jobs report, or in the unemployement report, then we know that at least 750k people left the job market for one reason or another, because they could not possibly fill new jobs that were not created. I wonder how many people were enrolled in college in August, but hoping that they would get a job in their field of choice (still in the labor market). Then in September, after starting class, finally admitted that they were not in the job market, any longer, and were now students, they were subtracted from the labor pool.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2012 13:05:01 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

The reported payrolls growth figure for September, 114,000 jobs, was incredibly close to consensus forecasts of about 115,000 jobs added. But everything else about the report considerably beat expectations. Jobs figures were revised upward by 40,000 in July, and by 46,000 in August. Combined with the jobs growth in September, that means the economy added 200,000 more jobs than we thought previously.

My math may be rusty but I don't think it is.

They expected 115k got 114k in the month of September - 1k less than anticipated.
They revised July by 40k
They revised August by 46k
Doesn't this mean that they added only 85k more than they thought NOT 200k?

um- dude- Nate counted the ones added in September? 114+86 = 200. usually.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2012 13:13:36 GMT -5 rockon said:

Just hilarious to see the dumbocrats immediately use an improvement in unemployment in their stump speech's as confirmation that their policies are working but consistently down played any discussion or responsibility when they were going up. Of course the opposition party does the same thing as well and are now claiming the numbers were fixed. That's why so many people are just tired of politics in general. (1) I keep hearing that this is the lowest unemployment number in four years but wasn't 7.8 the number it was when Obama took office in January 2009?

yes. it was 7.8% at day 10 of the Obama presidency.

(2) Have they changed the way the number is reported or determined?

if they have, i have only heard about it today, and i follow this stuff pretty closely.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

The one chart that shows there’s been no jobs market recovery since the end of the Great Recession

www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/the-one-chart-that-shows-theres-been-no-jobs-market-recovery-since-the-end-of-the-great-recession/






Economist Michael Darda of MKM Partners:

The U.S. lost 8.87 million private sector jobs during the Great Recession; since job growth resumed in March 2010, 4.73 million private sector jobs have been created, just more than half of the job losses suffered. However, the level of private sector jobs remains 12.6 million below the pre-crisis trend. …. In other words, a trend growth recovery has succeeded in stabilizing broad measures of labor market health, but catch-up growth is required for meaningful improvement.

We are only getting trend jobs growth, just enough to deal with population growth –but not enough to close the jobs gap, as defined by Darda. We won’t fill the jobs gap unless we get much faster growth than the 1.5%-2% GDP rate we are growing at at right now.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

3 charts that show Biden is right, the middle class ‘has been buried the last 4 years’

www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/3-charts-that-show-biden-is-right-the-middle-class-has-been-buried-the-last-four-years/

Vice President Joe Biden is spot on when he says the middle class “has been buried the last four years.”

1. According to an analysis of Census Bureau data by Sentier Research, August 2012 median annual household income of $50,678 — 5.7% lower than the median of $53,718 in June 2009, the end of the recent recession and beginning of the “economic recovery.”




2. Real disposable personal income has been flat since the recovery began and remains at depressed levels:





3. The U-6 unemployment rate — which includes part timers who wish they had full-time work — remains at stratospheric levels:

[deziloooooo]

Oct 5, 2012 10:19:46 GMT -5 beags said:

I am not going to credit the president for the jobs. I don't believe he had anything to do with it.

Before our current governor took office the unemployment rate was high in this state. Since he took office the jobs have started coming to this state. Now I don't agree with everything our governor did. Most people don't . . but he is keeping his promise of bringing jobs to our state, and he's doing it rather well. There are other states with very high unemployment numbers.

So I believe it is more a governor issue and not a president issue. In other words, the state should take credit or blame, not the nation. Our president likes to take credit for that of which he has not done .. . . and it doesn't matter who the president is . . another common factor.

You can or not credit the POTUS, means little ....the fact is, if one wants to levy blame on the one in office when negative things happen, then on the same token, if there are positive things happening methinks the one sitting in that office also gets the credit..You might think you can have it your way..I like to think that one cannot have it their way, but both ways are the way to go..it is only fair..yet I guess "some people" never think of what is fair , more the thinking runs along the lines of my way or the high way, mine and more mine seem the way their thinking goes.

[Deleted]

Data extracted on: October 5, 2012 (2:43:11 PM)


Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS11300000Seasonally AdjustedSeries title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation RateLabor force status: Civilian labor force participation rateType of data: Percent or rateAge: 16 years and over

Download: Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9 66.0 65.8 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.1 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.5 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.1 64.0 64.1 64.1 64.1 64.0 64.0
2012 63.7 63.9 63.8 63.6 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6

This is what I go by for un-employment statistics. Interesting that a media source reported on this.

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2012 13:47:55 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Oct 5, 2012 10:19:46 GMT -5 beags said:

I am not going to credit the president for the jobs. I don't believe he had anything to do with it.

Before our current governor took office the unemployment rate was high in this state. Since he took office the jobs have started coming to this state. Now I don't agree with everything our governor did. Most people don't . . but he is keeping his promise of bringing jobs to our state, and he's doing it rather well. There are other states with very high unemployment numbers.

So I believe it is more a governor issue and not a president issue. In other words, the state should take credit or blame, not the nation. Our president likes to take credit for that of which he has not done .. . . and it doesn't matter who the president is . . another common factor.

You can or not credit the POTUS, means little ....the fact is, if one wants to levy blame on the one in office when negative things happen, then on the same token, if there are positive things happening methinks the one sitting in that office also gets the credit..You might think you can have it your way..I like to think that one cannot have it their way, but both ways are the way to go..it is only fair..yet I guess Pubs/conservatives never think of what is fair , more the thinking runs along the lines of my way or the high way, mine and more mine seem the way their thinking goes.

Saying that Pubs/conservatives "never" think of what is fair, sounds pompous and judgmental. How can such a large group of people all think the same thing? That's like saying all Democrats are socialists, and believing it.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2012 13:44:22 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

3 charts that show Biden is right, the middle class ‘has been buried the last 4 years’

oh good god. the chart monster is back.

SF- are you H. Ross Perot?

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Oct 5, 2012 14:15:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 5, 2012 13:44:22 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

3 charts that show Biden is right, the middle class ‘has been buried the last 4 years’

oh good god. the chart monster is back.

SF- are you H. Ross Perot?

At least I provide accurate information/data from credible sources... and best of all, it provides visualization for those here who cannot read.

[usaone]

U-6, the number I watch is down from a few years ago. 17.5% to 14.7%

Also we have had a bubble in the participation rate because of the Baby Boomers. You need to go back to the pre baby Boom years to see were we will probably end up. Probably around 58% to 60%.

Slow recovery continues.

[Driftr]

Oct 5, 2012 14:15:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 5, 2012 13:44:22 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

3 charts that show Biden is right, the middle class ‘has been buried the last 4 years’

oh good god. the chart monster is back.

SF- are you H. Ross Perot?

;D

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2012 14:20:28 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Oct 5, 2012 14:15:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

oh good god. the chart monster is back.

SF- are you H. Ross Perot?

At least I provide accurate information/data from credible sources... and best of all, it provides visualization for those here who cannot read.

OUCH! hahaha. no seriously, dude. do you have any free disc space?

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2012 14:23:57 GMT -5 usaone said:

U-6, the number I watch is down from a few years ago. 17.5% to 14.7%

Also we have had a bubble in the participation rate because of the Baby Boomers. You need to go back to the pre baby Boom years to see were we will probably end up. Probably around 58% to 60%.

Slow recovery continues.

U6 is always up like a rocket and down like a feather. you can cherry pick the data any way you like, but it is better to hit the median of the downtrend and consider standard deviation than to call the peak the trend.

[EVT1]

The GOP calls it bad news- hence the immediate attempts to explain away the numbers.

[cme1201]

Oct 5, 2012 13:32:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 5, 2012 13:05:01 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

The reported payrolls growth figure for September, 114,000 jobs, was incredibly close to consensus forecasts of about 115,000 jobs added. But everything else about the report considerably beat expectations. Jobs figures were revised upward by 40,000 in July, and by 46,000 in August. Combined with the jobs growth in September, that means the economy added 200,000 more jobs than we thought previously.

My math may be rusty but I don't think it is.

They expected 115k got 114k in the month of September - 1k less than anticipated.
They revised July by 40k
They revised August by 46k
Doesn't this mean that they added only 85k more than they thought NOT 200k?

um- dude- Nate counted the ones added in September? 114+86 = 200. usually.

Reread...

Combined with the jobs growth in September, that means the economy added 200,000 more jobs than we thought previously

Note the word previously...

They EXPECTED 115k in September

they previously thought 115k so it only added 85K. Wording matters

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2012 14:42:37 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

The GOP calls it bad news- hence the immediate attempts to explain away the numbers.

i don't think most people are going to hear it. if the light says green, they generally go.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2012 15:06:32 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Oct 5, 2012 13:32:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

um- dude- Nate counted the ones added in September? 114+86 = 200. usually.

Reread...

Combined with the jobs growth in September, that means the economy added 200,000 more jobs than we thought previously

Note the word previously...

They EXPECTED 115k in September

they previously thought 115k so it only added 85K. Wording matters

i think you are right- he should not have said "previously", he should have just ended the sentence at "jobs". there was really no elegant way of saying it clearly, so i can kinda forgive him.

edit: actually, there was another way of saying it, which is how i read it:

"200,000 more jobs than we previously KNEW about".

i think that is what he was trying to say.

[Driftr]

Oct 5, 2012 12:38:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 5, 2012 12:36:42 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Really? I honestly didn't know that. Moving target indeed.

Driftr- it appears you are right about Johnson's claims. that is very disappointing. i will start looking for another candidate tonight. i have a couple that interest me.

You could always write in Ron Paul. You might just be the only one in CA to do it. :-)

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2012 15:24:02 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Oct 5, 2012 12:38:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Driftr- it appears you are right about Johnson's claims. that is very disappointing. i will start looking for another candidate tonight. i have a couple that interest me.

You could always write in Ron Paul. You might just be the only one in CA to do it. :-)

it may surprise you to learn that Paul actually polls pretty well here. ;D

[deziloooooo]

Oct 5, 2012 13:56:28 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Oct 5, 2012 13:47:55 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

You can or not credit the POTUS, means little ....the fact is, if one wants to levy blame on the one in office when negative things happen, then on the same token, if there are positive things happening methinks the one sitting in that office also gets the credit..You might think you can have it your way..I like to think that one cannot have it their way, but both ways are the way to go..it is only fair..yet I guess Pubs/conservatives never think of what is fair , more the thinking runs along the lines of my way or the high way, mine and more mine seem the way their thinking goes.

Saying that Pubs/conservatives "never" think of what is fair, sounds pompous and judgmental. How can such a large group of people all think the same thing? That's like saying all Democrats are socialists, and believing it.

Yeah , may be a bit over the top there..just something I think of per the group at times..ok will remove..good call..

[Gardening Grandma]

Oct 5, 2012 14:42:37 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

The GOP calls it bad news- hence the immediate attempts to explain away the numbers.

I'm always happy to see unemployment numbers go down. Regardless of who it benefits politically. If Republican politicians and pundits really cared about Americans, they'd cheer any good economic news.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2012 19:25:17 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Oct 5, 2012 14:42:37 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

The GOP calls it bad news- hence the immediate attempts to explain away the numbers.

I'm always happy to see unemployment numbers go down. Regardless of who it benefits politically. If Republican politicians and pundits really cared about Americans, they'd cheer any good economic news.

if they really cared, they would pass a frooging JOBS BILL.

[Icelandic Woman]

Awww poor Mittdickulous now has to remove those 8.1% ads he has already paid for. ;D