PDA

View Full Version : Unemployment at 8.6% . But wait!!!



Sev
12-02-2011, 09:34 AM
So the official unemployment is now 8.6%?
How can this be?
Thats 4/10's of 1%.
To achieve this that means about 612,000 jobs needed to be created.
Only 120,000 jobs were created.
Also 2.6 million people that were marginally attached to the work force were not counted prior to the survey because they were not actively seeking work.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2011/10/U3.jpg

Expect the December unemployment number to spike as this is pretty skewed.

cushioncrawler
12-02-2011, 03:19 PM
I am thinking that unemployment and nonemployment in the usofa iz say 20%.
mac.

Soflasnapper
12-02-2011, 04:54 PM
Yes, it's primarily an artifact of how these things are measured, and a decrease in the number of people 'in the work force' and unemployed, which means people still actively seeking work, and I think, still eligible for UE benefits.

But these 'UE rate as reported' artifacts come up in both directions. If or when economic conditions seem to be improving enough, more people will re-enter the workforce and actively seek jobs, meaning as the economy improves, the UE rate will go up.

Now clearly, when that happens, nobody will give Obama a break, and rather they'll say, see, UE is going up.

Which I understand somewhat, although the same artifact of the changing size of the totality of those actively seeking employment would be likewise the cause of that misleading change in the rate.

I suppose opponents of Obama will want to have that cake and eat it too. Which is not really fair. A technical reason artifact is an artifact whether helping him with perception of numbers, or harming him with perception of numbers.

Still, it is quite fair if his supporters tout this number as meaning more than the artifact that it is, then they bear the burden of the other side of the artifact, when it hurts him by appearance.

Soflasnapper
12-02-2011, 04:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am thinking that unemployment and nonemployment in the usofa iz say 20%.
mac. </div></div>

U-6 or a higher still UE number would show that now, quite true.

However, the reported number, the one that people use as THE proxy, is U-2 (Bono and The Edge have complained, or demanded at least copyright payments, to no avail!)

cushioncrawler
12-02-2011, 06:00 PM
Plus under-employed.
Plus mal-employed.
Plus prizoners.

The employment figures (% of total population) would be more akurat (but with arguement), and would provide some additional meaning (but with arguement).
mac.

Sev
12-02-2011, 08:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am thinking that unemployment and nonemployment in the usofa iz say 20%.
mac. </div></div>
Its about 18% total.

Sev
12-02-2011, 08:15 PM
Not to worried about it as the lie will become apparent in January.
Temps will all be let go.
People will see this number and start looking for jobs again. Thereby being counted again.
The 400,000 a month unemployment applications will spike.
The unemployment # will spike.

Notice Obama is not trumpeting the drop in unemployment. He knows what is coming.

LWW
12-03-2011, 04:46 AM
This is proof of the old adage that figures don't lie but liars can figure.

Sev
12-03-2011, 07:44 AM
Indeed.

LWW
12-03-2011, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Indeed. </div></div>

At least dear leader's regime is more humane than the regimes of Stalin, Lenin and Mao when this regime makes someone an unperson.

eg8r
12-03-2011, 11:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now clearly, when that happens, nobody will give Obama a break, and rather they'll say, see, UE is going up.
</div></div>So your defense of Obama is to give him a break now when the numbers can clearly be misinterpreted and then when the UE goes up we should give him a break again. You are definitely getting nuttier. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-12-2011, 05:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now clearly, when that happens, nobody will give Obama a break, and rather they'll say, see, UE is going up.
</div></div>So your defense of Obama is to give him a break now when the numbers can clearly be misinterpreted and then when the UE goes up we should give him a break again. You are definitely getting nuttier. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

Perhaps. Or perhaps you need a better prescription on your glasses or something? Hard of reading?

Here's the quote:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I suppose opponents of Obama will want to have that cake and eat it too. Which is not really fair. A technical reason artifact is an artifact whether helping him with perception of numbers, or harming him with perception of numbers.

Still, it is quite fair if his supporters tout this number as meaning more than the artifact that it is, then they bear the burden of the other side of the artifact, when it hurts him by appearance.</div></div>

So, here's the difference between what I wrote, and what you said I wrote.

I said if the Obama supporters tout this number (without the caveats) as good, then THEY DESERVE to have the flip side artifact count against him.

Fair, if they (wrongly) get the benefit of this, but the detriment of the (also wrong) later opposite artifact factor.

What is UNFAIR would be for his OPPONENTS to take advantage of both artifacts, denying this one, but claiming the later one as true (which they will).

What should really happen is that everyone should get informed about what these numbers really mean and really do not mean, and stick with that in all cases.

You will not find such equanimity of treatment in any anti-Obama voice I can think of-- but you could find it in reading what I write. And have found it, right here, if you would but open your eyes a bit and think.