• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Unemployement Drops: Legitimate or Not?

clownboy said:
To be fair, some of that may be accounted for in the rule change of 2010.
Click to expand...

Interesting... good find:


Citing what it calls "an unprecedented rise" in long-term unemployment, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beginning Saturday, will raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone can be listed as having been jobless.

The change is a sign that bureau officials "are afraid that a cap of two years may be 'understating the true average duration' — but they won't know by how much until they raise the upper limit,"​
 
The Barbarian said:
-chuckles- thank you .. Now that you stated that … I think Romney should put up 5 years … just to shut people up .. And stop the damn conspiracy theory’s …. Politicians seem to use common sense very little .. It was much the same with Obama . .and that damn birth certificate .. Just produce the damn stuff and stop all the talk .. Seems simple enough to me
Click to expand...

Do you really think the Dems would leave it at that? They would just create another hurdle for him to jump over: i.e.," prove to us that you didn't beat your wife, take her to the hospital, then deduct that as a medical expense." The point really isn't the tax records. The Dems cannot defend Obama's record and are left only with character assasination to make the other guy look bad.
 
poweRob said:
And there we have it:


View attachment 67135715


Call BLS and tell them they have it all wrong. You are arguing to the wrong people. Go set them straight.
Click to expand...

No conspiracy at all, where did I say that. It is what it is but it is a distortion of reality. People looking at the number say the economy is improving and that is wrong, all that reduction in unemployment was due to people shifting to under employed and are part of the U-6 number. If you think 1.3% GDP growth, 14.7% U-6 including 9.9 million under employed is a growing, improving economy, then you become an official Obama supporter, somone who doesn't understand what has happened. He is definitely your man.
 
poweRob said:
Sure... First you go to this website link...

Employment Situation Summary

where the BLS themselves say:


The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September​


Then at the top of that page are the phone numbers of the BLS that you can contact and ask why you think they are mistaken and/or are lying.

There you will probably hear about how the 7.8% also comes from more than just the 114,000 number you are posting but also the adjusted rates of the previous months which have been adjusted to better numbers as well... or you can just put on a tin-foil hat and get mad about it all. Your choice.
Click to expand...

You forgot the second point I asked about, which is how can a pathetic economic growth of 1.3% equal to a drop of unemployment by 3%. The first qt was 2% growth now it has dropped to 1.3% in the second qt. ending September. You don't see a disconnect here.
 
poweRob said:
Interesting... good find:


Citing what it calls "an unprecedented rise" in long-term unemployment, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beginning Saturday, will raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone can be listed as having been jobless.

The change is a sign that bureau officials "are afraid that a cap of two years may be 'understating the true average duration' — but they won't know by how much until they raise the upper limit,"​
Click to expand...

That article was written in December 2010 and isn't retroactive I don't believe. Explain the following discouraged workers then to us all

Notice the more than 1 million discouraged workers a month in 2010
Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
Click to expand...
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802
 
poweRob said:
Interesting... good find:


Citing what it calls "an unprecedented rise" in long-term unemployment, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beginning Saturday, will raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone can be listed as having been jobless.

The change is a sign that bureau officials "are afraid that a cap of two years may be 'understating the true average duration' — but they won't know by how much until they raise the upper limit,"​
Click to expand...

Yeah leave it to the government to confuse anything .. further down in the article it states this
The change will not affect how the unemployed are counted or the unemployment rate is computed nor how long those eligible for unemployment benefits receive them. Analysts call the move a sign of the times.

So either I'm missing something .. or they are saying that what they publish as unemployment rate is unchanged
 
Born Free said:
You forgot the second point I asked about, which is how can a pathetic economic growth of 1.3% equal to a drop of unemployment by 3%. The first qt was 2% growth now it has dropped to 1.3% in the second qt. ending September. You don't see a disconnect here.
Click to expand...

So it looks like you are running under the assumption that economic growth happens instantaneously with hiring. While they go together in general doesn't mean they are as tight as you are implying. Sometimes the economic growth has to happen first before the hiring... then of course there is hiring in anticipation of growth... for instance:


700,000 New Retail Jobs For Holiday 2012: Here's Who's Hiring

Major retailers announced early numbers for holiday hiring jumps, adding what experts are calling an additional 700,000 temporary jobs to the economy for the third quarter of 2012, a slight uptick from holiday hiring last year.​
 
The Barbarian said:
Yeah leave it to the government to confuse anything .. further down in the article it states this
The change will not affect how the unemployed are counted or the unemployment rate is computed nor how long those eligible for unemployment benefits receive them. Analysts call the move a sign of the times.

So either I'm missing something .. or they are saying that what they publish as unemployment rate is unchanged
Click to expand...


I recall under Clinton they changed the way they were calculating unemployment to make it look better. They definitely do screw with stats to hide numbers.
 
poweRob said:
I recall under Clinton they changed the way they were calculating unemployment to make it look better. They definitely do screw with stats to hide numbers.
Click to expand...

They did indeed, in 1994 the removed Discouraged workers from the official U-3 rate which will always make the unemployment rate look better as discouraged workers aren't counted as unemployed in the U-3 rate
 
Conservative said:
No conspiracy at all, where did I say that. It is what it is but it is a distortion of reality. People looking at the number say the economy is improving and that is wrong, all that reduction in unemployment was due to people shifting to under employed and are part of the U-6 number. If you think 1.3% GDP growth, 14.7% U-6 including 9.9 million under employed is a growing, improving economy, then you become an official Obama supporter, somone who doesn't understand what has happened. He is definitely your man.
Click to expand...


unemployment.jpg


Now... These lines are UNRATE, U4RATE & U6RATE. Notice how all of the are trending down. You can post numbers and point fingers all you want but your historical record is that you do so statically and never NEVER look at trends. So here... Here are the trends. I know you wish it to be going in the other direction but you are simply going to have to suck it up and be grumpy that the economy, unemployment and discouraged workers and all that jazz are getting better, not worse.

Independently here is the U6 rate:


fred-20120911-u6unemploymentrate.jpg


It's going down.
 
poweRob said:
View attachment 67135717


Now... These lines are UNRATE, U4RATE & U6RATE. Notice how all of the are trending down. You can post numbers and point fingers all you want but your historical record is that you do so statically and never NEVER look at trends. So here... Here are the trends. I know you wish it to be going in the other direction but you are simply going to have to suck it up and be grumpy that the economy, unemployment and discouraged workers and all that jazz are getting better, not worse.
Click to expand...

Wow, who would have thought that adding 5.4 trillion dollars to the debt would cause the U-6 rate to trend down to 14.7%(22.7 million). Where is the party?

If you generated numbers like Obama you would be unemployed today.
 
poweRob said:
View attachment 67135717


Now... These lines are UNRATE, U4RATE & U6RATE. Notice how all of the are trending down. You can post numbers and point fingers all you want but your historical record is that you do so statically and never NEVER look at trends. So here... Here are the trends. I know you wish it to be going in the other direction but you are simply going to have to suck it up and be grumpy that the economy, unemployment and discouraged workers and all that jazz are getting better, not worse.

Independently here is the U6 rate:


View attachment 67135718


It's going down.
Click to expand...

It IS...nice graphs. If one were to plot a trend line on the U6 you posted can you speculate what year it will be back at the 2007 8% level?
 
Conservative said:
Wow, who would have thought that adding 5.4 trillion dollars to the debt would cause the U-6 rate to trend down to 14.7%(22.7 million). Where is the party?

If you generated numbers like Obama you would be unemployed today.
Click to expand...

Another Conservative disingenuous stat. Obama didn't "generate" 5.4 trillion dollars to the debt. That is simply a matter of actually counting numbers that Bush was hiding. The bulk of that debt already existed... it merely was not put in the budget by the previous administration. What you are basically doing is blaming a politician who decided to be more honest with the numbers.

For that debt increase subtract out

1) Afghanistan war...
that Bush left off the budget that you are blaming Obama because he simply started counting that money ON the budget.

2) The Iraq war...
that Bush left off the budget that you are blaming Obama because he simply started counting that money ON the budget.

3) The unfunded Medicare part D...
that Bush left off the budget that you are blaming Obama because he simply started counting that money ON the budget.

4) The unfunded No Child Left Behind...
that Bush left off the budget that you are blaming Obama because he simply started counting that money ON the budget.​


God knows what else was buried and is now counted.
 
Dickieboy said:
It IS...nice graphs. If one were to plot a trend line on the U6 you posted can you speculate what year it will be back at the 2007 8% level?
Click to expand...

I personally wouldn't speculate. But growth and crash can be compounded on itself so I'd not even speculate that it would be the same line eternally.
 
LowDown said:
The unemployment rate has suddenly dropped just as the President's fortures took a turn for the worst. What does this mean?
Click to expand...

It means, as it did last month... that Obama is benifitting from people dropping out of the workforce...

Unemployment dropped by about 425K... so the unemployment percentage dropped... but only 125K jos were created.... so 300K just completely disappeared from the employment stratosphere...

That's not a good thing... that's actually worse than if it had just stayed steady, but less people dropped off unemployment...


On the surface, if can be argued either way... as it was in September, when it dropped from 8.3% to 8.1% for the same reason... both sides went back and forth attempting to explain their angle of it... and I think it either turned out to be a wash, or leaned in Romney's favor...


This time, it's falsely being represented as a positive jobs report by the liberal MSM desperate to turn momentum after Obama got beat in the debate... which may have a slight effect of slowing the trend to Romney at the moment...


It definitely makes Romney's job in the next debate harder... because he's going to have to explain this concept... and prepare people for the October jobs report, which will be released on Nov 2nd, which is likely going to show the same thing... as the number the number of people who have been on unemployment for forever is still high... and the amount of jobs created is still pretty meager...
 
poweRob said:
Another Conservative disingenuous stat. Obama didn't "generate" 5.4 trillion dollars to the debt. That is simply a matter of actually counting numbers that Bush was hiding. The bulk of that debt already existed... it merely was not put in the budget by the previous administration. What you are basically doing is blaming a politician who decided to be more honest with the numbers.

For that debt increase subtract out

1) Afghanistan war...
that Bush left off the budget that you are blaming Obama because he simply started counting that money ON the budget.

2) The Iraq war...
that Bush left off the budget that you are blaming Obama because he simply started counting that money ON the budget.

3) The unfunded Medicare part D...
that Bush left off the budget that you are blaming Obama because he simply started counting that money ON the budget.

4) The unfunded No Child Left Behind...
that Bush left off the budget that you are blaming Obama because he simply started counting that money ON the budget.​


God knows what else was buried and is now counted.
Click to expand...

You apparently have an attention deficit disorder as well as total lack of understanding of the budget deficit. Obama inherited a 10.6 trillion dollar debt which included all those expenses you listed so tell me what that has to do with the additional 5.4 trillion Obama has added?

You think because something isn't part of the budget it doesn't go against the deficit for the year? You, sir, are part of the problem, so much misinformation and a true Obama supporter.

Try to comprehend, budgets and supplementals are yearly not cumulative, debt is cumulative. Obama has had trillion dollar deficits every year in office. If you are an example of an Obama supporter then most people can see why we have such a problem in this country.
 
poweRob said:
I personally wouldn't speculate. But growth and crash can be compounded on itself so I'd not even speculate that it would be the same line eternally.
Click to expand...

You're floundering around like a fish out of water

GDP Growth was revised down to 1.3%. We would need to at least 4+% GDP growth for these job numbers to even be remotely plausible.
 
poweRob said:
Another Conservative disingenuous stat. Obama didn't "generate" 5.4 trillion dollars to the debt. That is simply a matter of actually counting numbers that Bush was hiding. The bulk of that debt already existed... it merely was not put in the budget by the previous administration. What you are basically doing is blaming a politician who decided to be more honest with the numbers.

For that debt increase subtract out

1) Afghanistan war...
that Bush left off the budget that you are blaming Obama because he simply started counting that money ON the budget.

2) The Iraq war...
that Bush left off the budget that you are blaming Obama because he simply started counting that money ON the budget.

3) The unfunded Medicare part D...
that Bush left off the budget that you are blaming Obama because he simply started counting that money ON the budget.

4) The unfunded No Child Left Behind...
that Bush left off the budget that you are blaming Obama because he simply started counting that money ON the budget.​


God knows what else was buried and is now counted.
Click to expand...

At what point are you libs going to stop blaming Bush?
 
joko104 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong...

1. They ONLY count people unemployed less than 12 months. If more than 12 months, they are considered no longer looking for work and not counted.
2. It makes no distinction between full and part time work. So if an unemployed person gives up finding a full time job and goes to work 20 hours a week at a UPS sorting center for $2 over
minimum, that is counted as becoming employed.
3. They also do not count people they consider unemployed but no longer trying to get a job.

If that is accurate, that statistic is false and pointless. Its like when they don't count fuel, food, medicine and utilities when calculating inflation. All sorts of tricks to falsely make the government look good.
Click to expand...


There are two different surveys that track employment and then the unemployment rate. What you are referring to is the way that the employment figures are calculated. For example this figure for September showed that employment grew by 114K. The other survey is based on 50-60,000 telephone call survey where they ask households if they are employed. This figure grew by about 875K this month. So take your pick which one you want to hang your hat on.
 
Conservative said:
You apparently have an attention deficit disorder as well as total lack of understanding of the budget deficit. Obama inherited a 10.6 trillion dollar debt which included all those expenses you listed so tell me what that has to do with the additional 5.4 trillion Obama has added?

You think because something isn't part of the budget it doesn't go against the deficit for the year? You, sir, are part of the problem, so much misinformation and a true Obama supporter.

Try to comprehend, budgets and supplementals are yearly not cumulative, debt is cumulative. Obama has had trillion dollar deficits every year in office. If you are an example of an Obama supporter then most people can see why we have such a problem in this country.
Click to expand...


I see... you are playing your typical "everything is Obama's fault as of 1/20/2009" including all fiscal commitments bush made that Obama had to go through with... like those that I listed that you don't want to acknowledge. Ignoring trends like always because history doesn't go with your political ideology.

I'll let the Christian Science Monitor inform you of what happened.


Presidential debate 101: Did Obama really double the deficit?

During the arithmetical dodge ball that constituted much of the first debate, Mitt Romney said the US deficit 'doubled' under Obama. In fact, it has declined, though it is still more than $1 trillion.

When President Obama took office in 2009 the deficit was already running at close to a record-setting pace. At the end of that fiscal year, it was $1.4 trillion. That’s “trillion” with a “T”. Ouch.

Fiscal 2012 ended on Sept. 30. The final figures aren’t yet in, but at the moment the Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will be ... (drum roll) $1.1 trillion. So smaller. Not doubled at all.​


Again, you post static numbers because trends refute you. There is LESS spending now than before. Partisan till the end no matter the numbers 'eh conservative?
 
Bronson said:
You're floundering around like a fish out of water

GDP Growth was revised down to 1.3%. We would need to at least 4+% GDP growth for these job numbers to even be remotely plausible.
Click to expand...

You are clearly wading into waters over your head.
 
Grim17 said:
Never... They will use any and every excuse they can to prop up their Messiah.
Click to expand...

Get over yourself and your ODS... Bush ran the wars off the budget. He submitted budgets where the wars were not included and instead submitted sperate "emergency supplementals" to fund the wars. Obama came into office and started putting the wars ON the budget. Ignore them all you want but thems the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom