Unemployment down to 8.6% - .4% drop in November

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns14000000

With the GDP climbing and having done amazingly well since Obama http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm we should have a good XMAS next year!

 

Prepare for the Eurozone disaster. The Bank of England tells us so!

 

Are you Americans or more Texas Clowns ?
Your true unemployment is 18%
You are going under . Or are you happy being left alone in complete ignorance?

 

Most of the drop is using Obama's fuzzy math that does not include those that can't find work so have stopped looking. They are still unemployed but Obama does not count them

 

Good start

 

I concurr, we started it, then we fixed it while the ripple will/may take us back down, we are in no way out of the water.

 

So what, the 18% or whatever the true number is, occurrs under every set of unemp data, so that is nothng new or nothing different. Unemp under Reagan was up to 10.8%, the true number was probably close to 20% at its peak. Apples/apples, this is nothing new.

 

Same fuzzy math as always in every unemp situation, esp dire ones under recessions. BTW, it's not Obama's fuzzy math, it's the BLS.

 

Actually it started with Clinton. Also understand some of the hiring maybe seasonal temporary jobs having to do with the holiday season.

 

Key Charts From The NFP Report: Records In Jobless Duration And People Who Want A Job As Civilian Labor Force Plunges

'Here are the four most important data points and charts from today's job report: the civilian labor force declined from 154,198 to 153,883, a 315K decline despite the civilian non-institutional population increased (as expected) from 240,269 to 240,441: always the easiest way to push down the unemployment rate. Percentage wise this was a drop from 64.2% to 64.0%: the lowest since back in 1983. Naturally, this would mean that the people not part of the labor force rose, and indeed they did by 487,000 to a record 86,558 from 86,071. This also means that more people are looking for a job: and indeed, the number of "Persons who want a job now" rose by 192K to a record 6.595 million. And lastly, confirming the behind the scenes disaster of the US jobless picture, the average duration of unemployment rose to a new record 40.9 weeks from 39.4 weeks previously. And that is your "improving" jobless picture in a nutshell.'

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/key-c...-people-who-want-job-civilian-labor-force-plu


In other words, the unemployment rate went down so much mostly because 315,000 people officially gave up looking for a job.

 

That's the government's cooking the books........the presidential election is near.

 

2 lame points in 1 post, but still basically a 1-liner, that will never change.

1) No, genius, the concept of people quitting to look for work, thus being a ghost number beyond the advertised rate has been a hidden component of the Unemp rate since it was conceived.

2) Uh, Clinton inherited 7% unemp and left ~4% while it constantly declined thru his terms, so to assert ghost unemployment started then is pathetic. The larger the actual unemployment, the greater the ghost number. I could image what the actual unemployment was during the Great Republican Depression. They claimed about 25%, so teh real number had to be twice that, just as it usually is. But larger unemployment numbers than are advertised are as old as sliced bread, not since the 90's; please buy, borrow or steal a clue.

3) Temporary seasonal employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

They said that last year, too. Unemp dropped .4% in Dec, 2010, the geniuses said it would regain after the holidays, yet it dropped another .4% in Jan 2011, .1% in both Feb and March.


So give me your best 1-liner; I enjoy helping you make yourself look stupid.

 

Oh I know, the, "Black Helicopter" argument. Riiiight, the gov is out to get us. See, if you had accidentally stepped foot onto a college/university you would understand peer-reviewed journals and see that this data is out there for all to LEGITIMATELY debunk, not just criticize or arbitrarily disagree with, as those who do have no real clue. So the burden is yours to show how this data is flawed, manipulated or an error in some way. You can stick with your 'redneckery' of "cookin' the books," but it just illustrates you have no answer.

 

1) It's a blog: Posted by : Bruce Krasting
Post date: 12/02/2011 - 15:34

2) Zero Hedge is a RW maggotted agenda site

3) Do you agree that the phenomenon of many more people actually unemployed over the advertised number occurs in every release of unemp data? It may vary, as with Reagan in 82-83 where unemp was 10.8% at peak, now @ 8.6% it will be more exaggerated than when unemp is let's say 4-5%, but still typical hidden data.

Here's an MSN objective article: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/learn-how-to-invest/The-real-unemployment-rate.aspx

That broader unemployment rate, or U-6, is up from 16.4% a year ago and from 9.7% in May 2008. It was 7.1% in May 2000.

2000 BLS: 4.0% U-6: 7.1%

2008 BLS: 5.4% U-6: 9.7%

Now BLS: 8.6% U-6: 16.4%

So you see the number varies as far as deviation, but I think it exaggerates the higher it gets, IOW's, it's error is exponential. They cal it U-6, the deviation.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp There's a great chart detailing U-6. Here's an explanation of U-3 (BLS advertised rate) and U-6: http://www.davemanuel.com/investor-dictionary/u6-unemployment-rate/

Here's a great historicalone, this refutes what your brother was saying about U-6 starting in the Clinton era: http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/u3-and-u6-unemployment-during-great-depression.

 

Einstein, they call it U-6: http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/u3-and-u6-unemployment-during-great-depression

And, uh, started in the Clinton era? Yea, this phenomenon has been going since the start of time, you know, when Jebus created the earth

U-6, whether it was called that back when or not, has been in effect forever. All it means is that there are people looking for a job who are not accounted for in the data set.

Your constant whining about it must be a Dem somewhere illustrates your closed mind and general lack of any intelligence. I think Eisenhower was fantastic and GHWB was very good. As well, I think LBJ was crap aside from the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Medicare, he was too involved in VN. I'm not real big on Truman either, of course FDR was top 3 aside from what the sociopathic Republican scum might think, he is revered as one of the best ever and that will never change. Partisan idiots clearly make themselves look stupid at every turn, I refuse to be one.

 

The data has been flawed before this. Isn't it interesting as we are so close to the presidential election, all of a sudden this news comes out? It reminds me of the so-call killing of Bin laden. Just when Obama's approval rating was at its lowest. Does the date say if those who got jobs are making the same, less or more than they did before? Does it say if the new jobs are permanent or temporary? It’s no wonder this Country is bound to go into a tyrannical dictatorship......too many people are still asleep.

 

Ahhh....okaaaaaaay.....


You have a nice day now.

 

You and your brother sure have a lot in common, primarily running from data. As seen by all, you lose.

Mt God, I even enumerated them for you, could I dumb it down any more? Now get to work, cut-n-run60.


1) It's a blog: Posted by : Bruce Krasting
Post date: 12/02/2011 - 15:34

2) Zero Hedge is a RW maggotted agenda site

3) Do you agree that the phenomenon of many more people actually unemployed over the advertised number occurs in every release of unemp data? It may vary, as with Reagan in 82-83 where unemp was 10.8% at peak, now @ 8.6% it will be more exaggerated than when unemp is let's say 4-5%, but still typical hidden data.

Here's an MSN objective article: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...ment-rate.aspx

That broader unemployment rate, or U-6, is up from 16.4% a year ago and from 9.7% in May 2008. It was 7.1% in May 2000.

2000 BLS: 4.0% U-6: 7.1%

2008 BLS: 5.4% U-6: 9.7%

Now BLS: 8.6% U-6: 16.4%

So you see the number varies as far as deviation, but I think it exaggerates the higher it gets, IOW's, it's error is exponential. They cal it U-6, the deviation.

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp There's a great chart detailing U-6. Here's an explanation of U-3 (BLS advertised rate) and U-6: http://www.davemanuel.com/investor-d...ployment-rate/

Here's a great historic site alone, this refutes what your brother was saying about U-6 starting in the Clinton era: http://www.economicpopulist.org/cont...eat-depression.

 

yay, now we can have two jobs, for less pay.
Life is good.

 

It's the Nazimerican way. Keep voting Republican, idiots.

 

Hate to break the news to you, but it's the dem/repub way.
Keep voting for one of the big two, and you too can wear the ID10T badge.

 

There are stark contrasts between the two. I have posted numerous data recently, have you read it? Are you sociopath Paul follower?

 

I see you are a fan of political theatre.

 

Most look at this as good news but temporary.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57335489/november-unemployment-why-the-big-drop/

 

You can claim anything you want but how we look at unemployment has changed

http://www.wealthbuildingcourse.com/real-unemployment-rate-20-rising.html