PDA

View Full Version : Unemployment drops to 9.4%????



Sev
01-07-2011, 07:51 AM
I really would like to know who is in charge of the numbers because while businesses are always hiring to some extent the over all weekly job losses have been exceeding job creation.

The private sector had a good month last month while corporate sector did not.

It should be interesting to see if there has been another revision of how they recognize and count the unemployed.

eg8r
01-07-2011, 08:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The private sector had a good month last month while corporate sector did not.
</div></div>This might catch me a rash of crap but what is the difference between private and corporate sectors? I understand private and public.

eg8r

Sev
01-07-2011, 08:57 AM
I see what you mean.
That was poorly stated.

I meant small business vs large corporate business.

LWW
01-07-2011, 09:05 AM
But what will drive the economy if UE continues to fall?

LWW

Stretch
01-07-2011, 09:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But what will drive the economy if UE continues to fall?

LWW </div></div>

Welfare and estate sales of course..... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif St.

LWW
01-07-2011, 10:10 AM
Of course if you look at a source other than the regime, you get a different view:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PRINCETON, NJ -- Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 9.6% at the end of December -- up from 9.3% in mid-December and 8.8% at the end of November.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/fcduta9jne297pdoc9mrkq.gif

Meanwhile, the percentage of part-time workers who want full-time work increased to 9.4% of the workforce in December -- up from 9.2% in mid-December and 8.4% at the end of November.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vrx_fbcgbumfgf84sdos8w.gif

The increase in Gallup's U.S. unemployment rate and the worsening in the percentage of part-time workers wanting full-time work combined to raise underemployment to 19.0% in December from 18.5% in mid-December and 17.2% at the end of November.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/jvq5ezijlumz_x-nkmlw3g.gif

The U.S. unemployment picture may seem unusually confusing these days. Gallup monitoring showed a sharp improvement in the jobs situation in November, particularly as companies added holiday workers. However, the government surprised Gallup and most other economic observers as it reported last month that the U.S. unemployment rate increased to 9.8% in November. It appears that the government made a larger seasonal adjustment than was generally anticipated for the month.

ADP on Wednesday reported that the economy added 297,000 private-sector jobs -- far above the consensus expectation that the government on Friday will report the U.S. economy added 140,000 new jobs overall in December. In contrast, Gallup shows the unemployment rate increasing as companies let go of holiday workers. At the same time, Gallup's Job Creation Index shows monthly average hiring and firing conditions essentially unchanged over the past three months.

Because the Gallup unemployment measure is not seasonally adjusted, it tends to more accurately reflect what is actually taking place in the U.S. job market -- and may not agree with the government's estimate that is seasonally adjusted. Further, Gallup's data tend to be more up-to-date than the government's because Gallup polls on the unemployment situation continuously. Combined, seasonal adjustments and timing differences likely explain much of the disparity between Gallup's measures of underemployment and unemployment, compared with those reported by others.

Whatever the government reports about unemployment on Friday, Gallup's U.S. underemployment data for the end of 2010 show that nearly one in five Americans continue to be unemployed or employed part-time looking for full-time work. In turn, this underscores the importance of job creation as a top national priority.</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;CLICK ON THIS VERBIAGE SNOOPY, THIS VERBIAGE IS A LINK. THAT MEANS THAT IF YOU PUT YOUR MOUSE CURSOR OVER THESE WORDS AND THEN CLICK ON THEM IT WILL TAKE YOU TO THE SOURCE OF THE DATA, WHICH JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE GALLUP ... AND WE ALL KNOW THAT YOU AND GEE HAVE CLAIMED GALLUP TO BE A QUALITY POLLING ORGANIZATION.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145478/Gallup-Finds-Unemployment-December.aspx)</span></span>

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-16-2011, 08:45 PM
Sev, it isn't good news, it's bad news that looks good.

What it represents is the number of unemployed who've given up actively seeking employment, so-called discouraged workers, plus the drop off of the 99rs from the rolls, who aren't any longer in the unemployment compensation system by being timed-out.

It's a technical decline for these reasons, and it doesn't mean we've really gotten another .2% of the people employed. (And these are the technical ways it's been done for a long time, just as how they use U2 instead of U6. They always quote the U2 number in government statistics, while also measuring and publishing the other U measures.)

LWW
01-17-2011, 12:58 AM
According to Pelosi and Gee this is horrible news, as both claim that high UE drives the economy.

LWW

Sev
01-17-2011, 09:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sev, it isn't good news, it's bad news that looks good.

What it represents is the number of unemployed who've given up actively seeking employment, so-called discouraged workers, plus the drop off of the 99rs from the rolls, who aren't any longer in the unemployment compensation system by being timed-out.

It's a technical decline for these reasons, and it doesn't mean we've really gotten another .2% of the people employed. (And these are the technical ways it's been done for a long time, just as how they use U2 instead of U6. They always quote the U2 number in government statistics, while also measuring and publishing the other U measures.) </div></div>

Quite true. Real unemployment is closer to 18%
And while there is job creation the fall off rate is still higher than the creation rate. Eventually if this does not reverse all the parlor tricks in the world will not be able to disguise the fact that a large sector of the country is out of work.

Soflasnapper
01-17-2011, 03:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to Pelosi and Gee this is horrible news, as both claim that high UE drives the economy.

LWW </div></div>

Please rephrase what you really meant to say here, because this makes absolutely no sense.

While they (well, Pelosi anyway, not sure who Gee is?) would say that unemployment compensation insurance is highly stimulative (with maybe 1.8 x its value given the ripple effects), they (well, NP anyway) haven't said that if jobs increase, and therefore less unemployment COMPENSATION is paid, that would be a bad thing.

So I guess you presented a joke, not meant to be taken literally or seriously?

LWW
01-17-2011, 05:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to Pelosi and Gee this is horrible news, as both claim that high UE drives the economy.

LWW </div></div>

Please rephrase what you really meant to say here, because this makes absolutely no sense.
</div></div>

Very little of what they say ever does make sense.

And, FWIW, Gee is simply a sock puppet of the democrook party ... whatever one of them says, she parrots. If two of them conflict, she believes both of them.

LWW

Stretch
01-18-2011, 01:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to Pelosi and Gee this is horrible news, as both claim that high UE drives the economy.

LWW </div></div>

Please rephrase what you really meant to say here, because this makes absolutely no sense.

While they (well, Pelosi anyway, not sure who Gee is?) would say that unemployment compensation insurance is highly stimulative (with maybe 1.8 x its value given the ripple effects), they (well, NP anyway) haven't said that if jobs increase, and therefore less unemployment COMPENSATION is paid, that would be a bad thing.

So I guess you presented a joke, not meant to be taken literally or seriously?
</div></div>

Yep, that's as funny as he gets. And Nope, we don't take anything he say's seriously.....much to his chagrin. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif St.

Qtec
01-18-2011, 01:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to Pelosi and Gee this is horrible news, as both claim that high UE drives the economy.

LWW </div></div>

Please rephrase what you really meant to say here, because this makes absolutely no sense.
</div></div>

Very little of what they say ever does make sense.

And, FWIW, Gee is simply a sock puppet of the democrook party ... whatever one of them says, she parrots. If two of them conflict, she believes both of them.

LWW </div></div>

Another non answer.

Phase 1...ignore.

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif

LWW
01-18-2011, 03:01 AM
I see you all still defend your queen.

Admirable.

LWW

Sev
01-18-2011, 07:02 AM
Ignore. OH NO!!!
Say it isnt sooooooooo!!!!

Sev
01-18-2011, 07:03 AM
If you look to the right of the screen you will see the top 5 posters. G is currently #1 in more than 1 way.

Soflasnapper
01-18-2011, 10:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you look to the right of the screen you will see the top 5 posters. G is currently #1 in more than 1 way. </div></div>

Thanks, Sev.

A little new to this side of the board, so the reference wasn't obvious to me.

S

Qtec
01-19-2011, 01:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see you all still defend your queen.

Admirable.

LWW </div></div>

You said this,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to Pelosi and Gee this is horrible news, as both claim that high UE drives the economy.

LWW </div></div>

..which is completely untrue. S explained it to you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Please rephrase what you really meant to say here, because this makes absolutely no sense.</span>

While they (well, Pelosi anyway, not sure who Gee is?) would say that unemployment compensation insurance is highly stimulative (with maybe 1.8 x its value given the ripple effects), they (well, NP anyway) haven't said that if jobs increase, and therefore less unemployment COMPENSATION is paid, that would be a bad thing.

So I guess you presented a joke, not meant to be taken literally or seriously? </div></div>

You replied with a non answer.

Q

LWW
01-19-2011, 02:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You said this,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to Pelosi and Gee this is horrible news, as both claim that high UE drives the economy.

LWW </div></div>

..which is completely untrue. [/size]

Q </div></div>

REALLY? (http://www.breitbart.tv/pelosi-unemployment-checks-fastest-way-to-create-jobs/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Comradette Peloski</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name." </div></div>

LWW

Sev
01-19-2011, 06:47 AM
Pelosi is a nit wit.

Sev
01-20-2011, 06:47 AM
Whats this I hear? Unemployment went back up to 9.6% There wasnt even a squeak by the media.

LWW
01-20-2011, 07:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whats this I hear? Unemployment went back up to 9.6% There wasnt even a squeak by the media. </div></div>

On the very same day that the Obamessiah created 200K+ US jobs.

LWW

Sev
01-20-2011, 07:15 AM
Oh my!!!

Soflasnapper
01-20-2011, 12:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whats this I hear? Unemployment went back up to 9.6% There wasnt even a squeak by the media. </div></div>

This is what always happens in a recovery once jobs start becoming more available.

Those discouraged workers who had dropped out of the unemployment numbers since they were no longer actively seeking employment see that prospects have improved, and they re-enter the job-seeking numbers. Although this only happens because economic prospects have improved, still it leads to increased stated unemployment rates which are misleading as to the truer jobs picture.

During GHW Bush's last year of '92, during recovery that had begun 6 months before in the prior year, unemployment rose from 7.1% to 7.8% before easing back to 7.6% at the end of the year, under a rip-roaring 4th quarter gdp growth number that came in about a 5.8% real growth rate (with about a 4% inflation rate, for a 9.8% nominal growth). Too late to save his presidency, as the 4th quarter numbers weren't in hand until about 45 days into the new year.

Sev
01-20-2011, 06:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whats this I hear? Unemployment went back up to 9.6% There wasnt even a squeak by the media. </div></div>

This is what always happens in a recovery once jobs start becoming more available.

Those discouraged workers who had dropped out of the unemployment numbers since they were no longer actively seeking employment see that prospects have improved, and they re-enter the job-seeking numbers. Although this only happens because economic prospects have improved, still it leads to increased stated unemployment rates which are misleading as to the truer jobs picture.

During GHW Bush's last year of '92, during recovery that had begun 6 months before in the prior year, unemployment rose from 7.1% to 7.8% before easing back to 7.6% at the end of the year, under a rip-roaring 4th quarter gdp growth number that came in about a 5.8% real growth rate (with about a 4% inflation rate, for a 9.8% nominal growth). Too late to save his presidency, as the 4th quarter numbers weren't in hand until about 45 days into the new year. </div></div>

Oh I fully understand that. I was commenting on nothing being commented on in the media.
The true unemployment rate is near 18%. The government should be forced to use the actual number and not the numerical chicanery.