• 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!

U.S. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

Just not limiting it to you, and I added more than you do. You do the socialist thing.

Oh, you added....Well, that certainly makes the wrong personal attack acceptable....:roll: Just knock it off Joe. I have already explained Obama's socialist sympathies. Do I think he is "a socialist" no. Do I think he is sympathetic with lines of thought that match up, or run parallel with Marx? yes.

Don't recall that, but even that doesn't match how you approach Obama. With Obama you go full hyperbolic mode.

Well of course you don't recall that...How convenient for your insulting line of thinking.

Nonsense. You merely making excuses. Such distinctions were never really made when republicans were in charge, and there was no difference then. None.

Shall we hold you to every line of thinking, or every utterance you've ever had? What a closed minded way of thinking you are displaying here Joe....

The numbers are no more funny than they've ever been. You and others only see it when you want to. That's my point. Either address or don't. But I am correct about that.

:lamo What an arrogant pile of crap you have here Joe. You must really think yourself something to behold don't you? Whether or not the calculations for determining the UE rates have been skewed in the past I suspect they have, and politically motivated as well on both sides of the isle, but that doesn't make it right. Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
What specifically are you claiming makes them phony, and are you claiming they're only phony under Obama or that they've always been phony?

Well, I am saying that over time both parties have used them to their advantage, especially during elections. As to specifics, when you want to look at something to empirically determine if there is a definitive number, or percentage you can measure, and track, I would think that something like people that have dropped out of the UE rolls, and given up ARE part of the total UE picture.

Would they not take a job if they thought one available? So to do things like not count them doesn't make them any less unemployed does it?

Who's telling you not to question them? The problem is that most of the "questions" I've heard reveal a complete ignorance of the actual methodology and/or purpose of the numbers.

Ah, so if people don't think exactly as you do in relation to UE numbers they are "ignorant"? That's nice. As for purpose, what is that in your mind?

For example, the UE rate is not a measurement of poverty or poor circumstances...

True, we have a measurement for poverty. Although as that relates to appropriations could be studied as well.

a multi-millionaire can be unemployed and is counted just the same as anyone else.

UE is not a measure of wealth, and shouldn't be....But this part of your statement possibly reveals much about your thinking on the matter in general.
 
Well, I am saying that over time both parties have used them to their advantage, especially during elections.
If you're talking actual manipulation and changing, then no. Never happened, though Nixon wanted to. It's practically impossible to do so.

Example: For the April numbers, data collection by the Census Bureau was the week of March 17-23. So the BLS employees had 9 working days to compile, aggregate, seasonally adjust, write the dozens of tables and submit the report to publications on April 4th. That's when the Commissioner approved it and it went to the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers (the only person outside BLS authorized a pre-release copy of the report) and he could tell the results to the President.

By that point, it's too late to make any changes and far too complicated. Any one change will affect multiple other series. Add on that Census has access to the raw data, and BEA has some access as well, and academic researchers are given access (under standard confidentiality agreements) and the state and local area data comes from a joint Federal/State program. And there's Congressional oversight. It would take a large conspiracy and a lot of law breaking to manipulate the data, and given the short time frame, it would be almost impossible to do so. And no one has ever come forward to claim any such manipulation.

As to specifics, when you want to look at something to empirically determine if there is a definitive number, or percentage you can measure, and track, I would think that something like people that have dropped out of the UE rolls, and given up ARE part of the total UE picture.
Yes and no. First, there are no "UE rolls" used in the UE rate..it's all from a survey. As for given up...that's out of scope of what the main UE rate is meant to measure. It's meant to measure how much available labor was not used in a given month. Someone not trying to get a job is not available to be hired, so has no proper place in that measurement.

Analogy: Say you're a seller of fine chocolate at a Farmer's Market. You sell out and you want to know how much you could have sold that day. You would count everyone who showed up at your stall to try and buy, you should count people who asked other sellers or their family/friends if you had any available and were told no. But would you count people who didn't go to the market or try to find out if you had any available that day? Regardless of how much chocolate you had, you wouldn't have sold any to those people.

Same thing with the labor market...if someone is no longer looking for work, they will not get a job no matter how many jobs are available, and so are not a good indicator of how many people could have been hired but weren't.

The discouraged and marginally attached are tracked as people who are likely to start looking again...going back to the analogy, these would be people who were previous customers and those who had previously expressed interest and might come back in the future. Good to know for future plans, but you still can't count them as people who were unable to buy on the specific day in question because they didn't make any attempt to, so would have bought any even if you had had enough.

Would they not take a job if they thought one available?
Sure, but how would they know if a job is available or not if they're not looking? And notice the question is what they think not the reality.
So to do things like not count them doesn't make them any less unemployed does it?
It makes them not available to be hired in the specific month.

Ah, so if people don't think exactly as you do in relation to UE numbers they are "ignorant"?
Huh? It has nothing to do with what I think. If people say the UE rate is off because it doesn't count people no longer receiving benefits, then that's ignorance of the methodology: benefits or no benefits have never ever been a part of the calculations. If people think changing the data is as simple as the President calling BLS and saying "I want the rate to be 6.4%" then that's ignorance; if people think there's a list of everyone in the country and names can arbitrarily be moved into different categories; if people think that the rate is derived by any other means that what actually happens...that's all ignorance. Nothing to do with opinion or my thoughts. And the majority of complaints I've heard show that the person doesn't actually understand how the rate is derived, what the definitions are or why.


UE is not a measure of wealth, and shouldn't be....But this part of your statement possibly reveals much about your thinking on the matter in general.
Not really. Some of the complaints I've heard are that those not classified as unemployed should be because they or their family are suffering. This implies that the person thinks unemployment is some kind of measurement of suffering, so I offered the example of a millionaire to show that suffering or not suffering or any socio-economic status has nothing to do with classifying as unemployed or not. I can see how that wasn't clear.
 
Last edited:
If you're talking actual manipulation and changing, then no. Never happened, though Nixon wanted to. It's practically impossible to do so.

Example: For the April numbers, data collection by the Census Bureau was the week of March 17-23. So the BLS employees had 9 working days to compile, aggregate, seasonally adjust, write the dozens of tables and submit the report to publications on April 4th. That's when the Commissioner approved it and it went to the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers (the only person outside BLS authorized a pre-release copy of the report) and he could tell the results to the President.

By that point, it's too late to make any changes and far too complicated. Any one change will affect multiple other series. Add on that Census has access to the raw data, and BEA has some access as well, and academic researchers are given access (under standard confidentiality agreements) and the state and local area data comes from a joint Federal/State program. And there's Congressional oversight. It would take a large conspiracy and a lot of law breaking to manipulate the data, and given the short time frame, it would be almost impossible to do so. And no one has ever come forward to claim any such manipulation.

Yes and no. First, there are no "UE rolls" used in the UE rate..it's all from a survey. As for given up...that's out of scope of what the main UE rate is meant to measure. It's meant to measure how much available labor was not used in a given month. Someone not trying to get a job is not available to be hired, so has no proper place in that measurement.

Analogy: Say you're a seller of fine chocolate at a Farmer's Market. You sell out and you want to know how much you could have sold that day. You would count everyone who showed up at your stall to try and buy, you should count people who asked other sellers or their family/friends if you had any available and were told no. But would you count people who didn't go to the market or try to find out if you had any available that day? Regardless of how much chocolate you had, you wouldn't have sold any to those people.

Same thing with the labor market...if someone is no longer looking for work, they will not get a job no matter how many jobs are available, and so are not a good indicator of how many people could have been hired but weren't.

The discouraged and marginally attached are tracked as people who are likely to start looking again...going back to the analogy, these would be people who were previous customers and those who had previously expressed interest and might come back in the future. Good to know for future plans, but you still can't count them as people who were unable to buy on the specific day in question because they didn't make any attempt to, so would have bought any even if you had had enough.

Sure, but how would they know if a job is available or not if they're not looking? And notice the question is what they think not the reality. It makes them not available to be hired in the specific month.

Huh? It has nothing to do with what I think. If people say the UE rate is off because it doesn't count people no longer receiving benefits, then that's ignorance of the methodology: benefits or no benefits have never ever been a part of the calculations. If people think changing the data is as simple as the President calling BLS and saying "I want the rate to be 6.4%" then that's ignorance; if people think there's a list of everyone in the country and names can arbitrarily be moved into different categories; if people think that the rate is derived by any other means that what actually happens...that's all ignorance. Nothing to do with opinion or my thoughts. And the majority of complaints I've heard show that the person doesn't actually understand how the rate is derived, what the definitions are or why.


Not really. Some of the complaints I've heard are that those not classified as unemployed should be because they or their family are suffering. This implies that the person thinks unemployment is some kind of measurement of suffering, so I offered the example of a millionaire to show that suffering or not suffering or any socio-economic status has nothing to do with classifying as unemployed or not. I can see how that wasn't clear.

Well, I have to apologize because some of that is over my head, but as an average workin' stiff, digging into statistics, (which we all know can be, and are manipulated) are not how average people look at this economy. There are what I like to call "gut measures"....

How many people do they know that are either unemployed, or underemployed?
What does the business landscape look like? (shops closed, strip malls shuttered, etc.)
What are the big employment drivers in the community doing, are factories hiring?

I can only tell you what I see as a truck driver that travels into different areas of the country, and that is I look around and see a lot of closed business.

What you said about manipulation of the numbers being illegal, I agree with, but since the system seems to be set up for not only election purposes, but in appropriations processes that benefit reps, there is little chance that the corruption seen on both sides of the isle in this matter will be solved any time soon.

The only thing I can tell you is that I haven't seen this type of misery out there in the jobs market since the late 70s.
 
Well, I have to apologize because some of that is over my head, but as an average workin' stiff, digging into statistics, (which we all know can be, and are manipulated) are not how average people look at this economy. There are what I like to call "gut measures"....

How many people do they know that are either unemployed, or underemployed?
What does the business landscape look like? (shops closed, strip malls shuttered, etc.)
What are the big employment drivers in the community doing, are factories hiring?

I can only tell you what I see as a truck driver that travels into different areas of the country, and that is I look around and see a lot of closed business.

What you said about manipulation of the numbers being illegal, I agree with, but since the system seems to be set up for not only election purposes, but in appropriations processes that benefit reps, there is little chance that the corruption seen on both sides of the isle in this matter will be solved any time soon.

The only thing I can tell you is that I haven't seen this type of misery out there in the jobs market since the late 70s.
Regardless of your own personal viewpoint, consumer confidence, while still low, it at the highest it's been January, 2008. 2 of the 3 indexes of the stock market are at the highest they've ever been. GDP is at the highest it's ever been. The worst nightmare imaginable for the right is coming true -- the economy is getting better under President Obama.
 
Regardless of your own personal viewpoint, consumer confidence, while still low, it at the highest it's been January, 2008. 2 of the 3 indexes of the stock market are at the highest they've ever been. GDP is at the highest it's ever been. The worst nightmare imaginable for the right is coming true -- the economy is getting better under President Obama.

Nah, you ought to stop with the hyperbolic nonsense....It is true enough that I don't like the current President, his policies, or his lies to the American people. That has nothing to do with whether or not I'd like to see our economy get better. Your knee jerk, and programmed response that I somehow want the economy to tank simply because I don't like who is President is foolish, and a meme fed you by hyper partisan leftists and you just ate it up.
 
Nah, you ought to stop with the hyperbolic nonsense....It is true enough that I don't like the current President, his policies, or his lies to the American people. That has nothing to do with whether or not I'd like to see our economy get better. Your knee jerk, and programmed response that I somehow want the economy to tank simply because I don't like who is President is foolish, and a meme fed you by hyper partisan leftists and you just ate it up.
Regardless, what is actually occurring doesn't seem to mesh with what you claim to see happening.
 
Regardless, what is actually occurring doesn't seem to mesh with what you claim to see happening.

No, you just won't open your eyes. People quitting job hunting does not tranlate to a drop in umemployment. Far fewer people are working, period.
 
Regardless, what is actually occurring doesn't seem to mesh with what you claim to see happening.

Ah, so now it is "regardless" eh? Or, don't believe my lyin' eyes right? Nah, you came at me trying to push lousy talking point crap, that is clearly dismissed by any rational, critical thinking person seeing real world conditions with their own eyes...You need a new bag before you try to pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
 
No, you just won't open your eyes. People quitting job hunting does not tranlate to a drop in umemployment. Far fewer people are working, period.

The numbers say otherwise ...

Employment
Jan/2009: 142,153,000
Apr/2013: 143,579,000

According to BLS, there are 1,426,000 more people working today than there were when Obama became president.


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
The numbers say otherwise ...

Employment
Jan/2009: 142,153,000
Apr/2013: 143,579,000

According to BLS, there are 1,426,000 more people working today than there were when Obama became president.


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Again with stats, and omission to shape them to what you want to promote eh....If that many more people are now working, how does that stack up against population growth in the job market?
 
The numbers say otherwise ...

Employment
Jan/2009: 142,153,000
Apr/2013: 143,579,000

According to BLS, there are 1,426,000 more people working today than there were when Obama became president.


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Even if those numbers were accurate - and they're not - McDonalds part time doesn't count, and that doesn't keep pace with the graduates and 16-year-olds entering the market.

Those on welfare and food stamps are at an all-time high.
 
Again with stats, and omission to shape them to what you want to promote eh....If that many more people are now working, how does that stack up against population growth in the job market?
There's nothing else you have to work with. There is no other way to measure employment. It's not my problem that you don't like the numbers.

As far as keeping up with population growth, that has been happening for the last two years now.
 
Well, I have to apologize because some of that is over my head, but as an average workin' stiff, digging into statistics, (which we all know can be, and are manipulated) are not how average people look at this economy. There are what I like to call "gut measures"....
No need to apologize, it gets pretty technical. Just keep in mind that the people actually collecting and putting together the statistics have no motive or reason to manipulate anything. The "manipulation" comes in the analysis and what politicians say the numbers mean. And of course, with any statistics, there are plenty of sources of error and the numbers, no matter how carefully collected and tabulated, can be off just by chance.

How many people do they know that are either unemployed, or underemployed?
What does the business landscape look like? (shops closed, strip malls shuttered, etc.)
What are the big employment drivers in the community doing, are factories hiring?
The problem with that is that we're a big country. The unemployment rate varies from 3.1% in Midland, TX to 26% in Yuma, AZ. So just looking around isn't all that accurate. For folks in Midland, everything looks fine, but there are parts of Texas with UE rate over 10% And for folks from Yuma up the Califonia Central Valley, it looks like a Depression.

The only thing I can tell you is that I haven't seen this type of misery out there in the jobs market since the late 70s.
In some ways it's worse. Long term unemployment (15 or more weeks) is just horrible right now. During Reagan's recession it briefly was as bad as it is now, but it's never been as bad as it got to a couple years ago.
 
Again with stats, and omission to shape them to what you want to promote eh....If that many more people are now working, how does that stack up against population growth in the job market?

In the job market? Well, employment is up 1,426,000, unemployment is down 420,000

For those Not in the Labor Force (not working and not looking for work), those who don't want a job are up 8,716,000 and those who say they want a job (but aren't classified unemployed because they're not trying to work) is up 716,000
 
In the job market? Well, employment is up 1,426,000, unemployment is down 420,000

For those Not in the Labor Force (not working and not looking for work), those who don't want a job are up 8,716,000 and those who say they want a job (but aren't classified unemployed because they're not trying to work) is up 716,000

Yeah, at this point it just becomes a classic shell game, or three card monty...I am not buying any of it anymore.
 
Yeah, at this point it just becomes a classic shell game, or three card monty.
How do you figure? How is it in any way a shell game or 3 card monty? How do you think that works?
 
How do you figure? How is it in any way a shell game or 3 card monty? How do you think that works?

Well, how do you think it works when in one months reporting you have say 130,000 jobs created, and in the same report you have 350,000 new applications for unemployment benefits, and they tell us that the percentage went down.....Yeah, right....Then to make it worse two months later they come back and tell us "oh, you remember that 130,000 number, in actuality it was really only 85,000 jobs, but the percentage stayed the same......

I was born at night, but not last night.....
 
Well, how do you think it works when in one months reporting you have say 130,000 jobs created, and in the same report you have 350,000 new applications for unemployment benefits, and they tell us that the percentage went down.....Yeah, right...
ok, you're mixing 3 unrelated things. "New jobs" is the NET change of jobs each month, derived from a survey of businesses and released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

Initial claims is the weekly number of new UI claims released every week by the Employment and Training Administration. Obviously that can't account for new hires, so you can't really compare it to net job change.

And the Unemployment rate (monthly by BLS) comes from a household survey and uses a different measure of employment (more comprehensive, less accurate) and doesn't just count people receiving benefits.

.Then to make it worse two months later they come back and tell us "oh, you remember that 130,000 number, in actuality it was really only 85,000 jobs, but the percentage stayed the same......
For various reasons, not all companies in the jobs survey report on time, so the numbers are subject to revision, But as I said, the jobs numbers aren't used in the UE rate calculations, so those revisions won't affect the rate.

I was born at night, but not last night.....

Why do you assume that, if the numbers don't make sense it's because of (incompetent if so obvious) manipulation, rather than think you might be missing something?

If something doesn't make sense, ask me, and I'll explain and/or show you where to look.
 
ok, you're mixing 3 unrelated things. "New jobs" is the NET change of jobs each month, derived from a survey of businesses and released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

Initial claims is the weekly number of new UI claims released every week by the Employment and Training Administration. Obviously that can't account for new hires, so you can't really compare it to net job change.

And the Unemployment rate (monthly by BLS) comes from a household survey and uses a different measure of employment (more comprehensive, less accurate) and doesn't just count people receiving benefits.

For various reasons, not all companies in the jobs survey report on time, so the numbers are subject to revision, But as I said, the jobs numbers aren't used in the UE rate calculations, so those revisions won't affect the rate.



Why do you assume that, if the numbers don't make sense it's because of (incompetent if so obvious) manipulation, rather than think you might be missing something?

If something doesn't make sense, ask me, and I'll explain and/or show you where to look.

I hate to say it, but economics on a macro level like this just hurts my head....All I know is that something isn't right about this whole thing, and when it doesn't feel right, I have pretty good instincts about this sort of thing....
 
Once again...

...in April...some more stats...

- the average weekly hours dropped from 34.6 to 34.4 hours.

- manufacturing jobs created...zip.

- mining and logging jobs...down 3,000

- construction jobs...down 6,000

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted


Plus, the underemployment rate (U-6 - the REAL unemployment indicator to me) went up from 13.8% to 13.9%.
 
Last edited:
Once again...

...in April...some more stats...

- the average weekly hours dropped from 34.6 to 34.4 hours.

- manufacturing jobs created...zip.

- mining and logging jobs...down 3,000

- construction jobs...down 6,000

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted


Plus, the underemployment rate (U-6 - the REAL unemployment indicator to me) went up from 13.8% to 13.9%.

Leave it to rightwingers to call a net gain of almost 300 thousand new jobs, a bad thing. :screwy
 
Oh, you added....Well, that certainly makes the wrong personal attack acceptable....:roll: Just knock it off Joe. I have already explained Obama's socialist sympathies. Do I think he is "a socialist" no. Do I think he is sympathetic with lines of thought that match up, or run parallel with Marx? yes.

'

Well of course you don't recall that...How convenient for your insulting line of thinking.



Shall we hold you to every line of thinking, or every utterance you've ever had? What a closed minded way of thinking you are displaying here Joe....



:lamo What an arrogant pile of crap you have here Joe. You must really think yourself something to behold don't you? Whether or not the calculations for determining the UE rates have been skewed in the past I suspect they have, and politically motivated as well on both sides of the isle, but that doesn't make it right. Two wrongs don't make a right.

No one said it made it right, only that you and others will only see it when a democrat is in charge, and despite next to no difference between the two parties, you and others will go all hyperbolic socialist (with Obama some will add the communist Marxist Kenyon terrorist).

And you are free to address anything I've ever ACTUALLY said.


now care to address what is being argued?
 
Leave it to rightwingers to call a net gain of almost 300 thousand new jobs, a bad thing. :screwy

This might be a more interesting debate if we could stop the insults about liberals or rightwingers. It seems legitimate to discuss not only if there is job growth, but are we growing good paying jobs. If we fire one middle manager in a big company making 100K and hire two Wal mart greeters making 20K have we made progress?
 
I am honestly surprised on the construction numbers. I have seen growth in the waste-water industry over the last year. We are a small segment of construction, but I always feel we go hand and hand.
 
Back
Top Bottom