• 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?

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The unemployment rate has suddenly dropped just as the President's fortures took a turn for the worst. What does this mean?
 
It depends on whether or not Romney and others can make it stick the proposition that either a) the numbers are weak in terms of improvement b) The number doesn't tell the whole story about the findings. So far they are doing B, but during the debate, we will see how that tracks.

At first the media in print has focused on the number (the current interpretation being used by Obama), but just a tiny bit ago I saw a couple of interesting things: on CNN (during one segment anyhow) they replied to Romney's proposition that the number was due to people dropping the workforce, and that his statement kind of checks out. Then afterwards they gave the proposition that the numbers are improving in many other regards as well, and that points to movement, however slowly. Then I flipped to Fox, and of course we will get more coverage on this, but they pointed to Lou, who disagreed with Romney's statement, but gave an alternative explanation: the method of the survey is what is mostly at fault (while he still suggested it would be foolish to be conspiratorial about this). This will be important when it comes to viewers watching and reading "fact checkers" in the coming weeks. Whatever interpretation seems to jive more will get the play.
 
The unemployment rate has suddenly dropped just as the President's fortures took a turn for the worst. What does this mean?

The largest one month jump in total employment in the last 29 years. And it just happens to occur 4 weeks before a tightly contested presidential election.

Either Obama is incredibly lucky or some numbers got fudged. (either option is a possibility.....)
 
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.
 
images
 
This very neutral article provides a pretty logical answer.

Does White House Manipulate Jobs Numbers? - ABC News

“I would be very skeptical of any claims the job statistics are manipulated,” Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C., told ABC News. ”If they were, the administration’s record so far in 2012 would undoubtedly look a lot brighter.” Indeed, as Ezra Klein points out in the Washington Post, the drop is a mere three-tenths of one percent, from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent–not exactly a reason to crack open the Veuve Clicquot.

“The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which conducts the monthly jobs survey is a non-partisan group of hard-working people that have the public trust. Considering this trust and the controls imposed on their processes, the chances that the BLS actively “manipulated” data are extremely low, even if some of the numbers underlying today’s jobs report appear surprising. In my discussions with statistical organizations, political officials receive information about economic releases only after the numbers have been calculated, so there’s no opportunity for the White House–or anyone else–to alter the results.”
 
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.

Which happens to be the way they have calculated it long before Obama was elected. If you want to claim the figures don't give a true picture, fine, I'll even agree with you. Claiming that it is suddenly being manipulated to aid Obama is the same kind of ridiculous conspiracy theory as the "birther" crap which made a laughingstock of the right.
 
The unemployment rate has suddenly dropped just as the President's fortures took a turn for the worst. What does this mean?

What's this tea party failing to stop Obama?

I have a feeling the right will spin it to something like this "Romney's debate was so inspiring more people started looking for work"

<.< >.>
 
Last edited:
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.

Aren't these the same numbers and methods used in all previous months and years?...your point?
 
Which happens to be the way they have calculated it long before Obama was elected. If you want to claim the figures don't give a true picture, fine, I'll even agree with you. Claiming that it is suddenly being manipulated to aid Obama is the same kind of ridiculous conspiracy theory as the "birther" crap which made a laughingstock of the right.

I assume this is a blanket statement, 'cause Joko never made that implication at all. In fact, his last sentence would suggest he's speaking in terms of the general calculation of data, not the calculations specific to this particular administration's existence.
 
Aren't these the same numbers and methods used in all previous months and years?...your point?

I believe his point is contained in his last two sentences: the calculation is flawed, and has been as long as the method he outlined above has been used. He never said this is a "new" system. He said it is a flawed system. Why don't you argue on the basis of what he actually posted instead of posting strawmen?
 
The unemployment rate has suddenly dropped just as the President's fortures took a turn for the worst. What does this mean?

Considering the Obama admin is offering to compensate companies to violate the WARN Act in order to prevent hundreds of thousands of defense workers from getting layoff notices in the week before the election, I have a hard time trusting anything they say about employment rates
 
Which happens to be the way they have calculated it long before Obama was elected. If you want to claim the figures don't give a true picture, fine, I'll even agree with you. Claiming that it is suddenly being manipulated to aid Obama is the same kind of ridiculous conspiracy theory as the "birther" crap which made a laughingstock of the right.

calculate this.. what would the unemployment rate be if we had the same amount of people looking for work instead on not being counted anymore as they have given up looking , since the day Obama got into office..

what would that rate be? I will say 12-14%
 
Considering the Obama admin is offering to compensate companies to violate the WARN Act in order to prevent hundreds of thousands of defense workers from getting layoff notices in the week before the election, I have a hard time trusting anything they say about employment rates

thats a great point.. Lets hope Mitt uses that.
 
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.

Mostly correct in your contention, and here are the real facts

September Unemployed 12.088 million unemployed
Labor force of 155.053 million

Unemployment rate 12.088/155.053= 7.8%

Now what they continue to miss are the discouraged workers and under employed meaning people who are working part time or in low wage positions below their skill level. So here are the addtional unemployed

Discouraged workers, 802,000, these are people who have stopped looking for work and thus are no longer counted as unemployed
The U-6 numbers are the unemployed, discouraged workers, and other marginally unattached people including under employed

U-6 number 14.7 % unemployment rate
Labor force 155.053

14.7% X 155.053= 22.79 million unemployed, under employed, discouraged workers

22.79 million minus 12.088 million minus 802,000 discouraged workers=9.9 under employed

Those 9.9 million unemployed are mostly part time workers and are included in the count of jobs created. Pretty simple to point out that this is a terrible recovery and due mostly to very poor if not zero leadership from Obama.

Hope that helps
 
It's a time-honored and tried technique in American politics, especially the closer we get to an election. Campaign by headline I call it. With all the furor and flak that surrounds a heated race there are a significant number of voters that only get as far as the headlines. The stories go into more depth and often modfy the headline, but a whole lot of voters don't see those modifications.

Then the sockpuppets get ahold of the headline (if it's pro their candidate or negative to the opposition) and broadcast it without the modifying info, further exacerbating the issue.
 
I believe his point is contained in his last two sentences: the calculation is flawed, and has been as long as the method he outlined above has been used. He never said this is a "new" system. He said it is a flawed system. Why don't you argue on the basis of what he actually posted instead of posting strawmen?

I have questioned the validity of those numbers for more than a decade.....the poster is making an implication that the current administration is not counting the numbers correctly when he selectively left out the point this is the same method used by all previous administrations too....that was why I asked him for his point.

I'm not sure what posting strawmen means.....can you explain that?...thanks in advance.
 
The methodology leaves gaps but then we must ask ourselves inconvenient questions like "Are people on welfare really looking for work and therefore how many if any of them should be included in the unemployment numbers?"
 
The methodology leaves gaps but then we must ask ourselves inconvenient questions like "Are people on welfare really looking for work and therefore how many if any of them should be included in the unemployment numbers?"

If you are physically and mentally able to work and you don't have a job, you should be counted in the unemployment numbers
 
If you are physically and mentally able to work and you don't have a job, you should be counted in the unemployment numbers

I would agree except for those who are independently wealthy or "homemakers". Somebody who doesn't want to work and is receiving no form of welfare in place of a work-earned income shouldn't really be counted, IMO.
 
He promised <8% years ago. One month before the election just doesn't do much for me. And there is the whole premise that 7.8% is somehow a good number; BS, it still sucks when you consider that 4-5% is considered full employment. Then there is the fudging factor, where you go to the Labor Dept and dig up all kinds of versions of unemployment figures U1-U6. Come on!

The articles I've read from the leftwing sites like CNBC and CNN say it won't do much for the election.
 
I would agree except for those who are independently wealthy or "homemakers". Somebody who doesn't want to work and is receiving no form of welfare in place of a work-earned income shouldn't really be counted, IMO.

Agreed. Though I would assume those people would make up the bulk of the 4-5% unemployed under times of "full employment"
 
The unemployment rate has suddenly dropped just as the President's fortures took a turn for the worst. What does this mean?

It means that we are still in stagnant growth. Until the rate spikes up, we aren't seeing significant growth.
 
Unemployment drops right near the christmas season? Of course, the romtards cannot see this for what it is because they do not have the brain cells to do simple math. So they claim conspiracy after conspiracy which if true completely debunks their main claim that the economy was doing horrible because it was based on the very numbers they claim to be altered by the president. Like always, their story makes no sense.

However, a jump in seasonal employment is to be expected. You have a number of jobs opening due to kids going back to school. You have the back to school rush to buy clothes, electronics, and school supplies. You have the prep for the christmas season, and two big holiday buying seasons. Not to mention that last week of summer vacation rush right before school. There is also the release of next years car models to boost car sales. The electronics people are going to be dumping cheap older models to make room for the christmas goodies. From here until january return season many businesses will be hiring and seeing increased revenue.

A good businessman would have been prepared for a very predictable rise in revenue and commerce that would boost america's economy. It happens every year. I guess this means Mittens is a piss ****ing poor businessman because he did not know about the year end holiday season buying spree?
 
Back
Top Bottom