• 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!

May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

Of course 'new jobs' were created... tourist season is upon us..... :wink:

And they'll go away come mid-August......

Yep, just like they have for the past 39 consecutive months, right?
 
Of course 'new jobs' were created... tourist season is upon us..... :wink:

And they'll go away come mid-August......
The numbers are seasonally adjusted to account for that. The unadjusted change in jobs was +885,000, adjusted down to +175,000 precisely because hiring as always goes up that time of year
 
And in how many monthly reports are the adjustments big news ?

Hmm...Oct 2012

Any others? Hmmm.
 
And in how many monthly reports are the adjustments big news ?

Hmm...Oct 2012

Any others? Hmmm.
Last month for starters. The October figures received heightened attention due to the election, but the scale of the revision was hardly unprecedented.

The change in total non farm payroll employment for February was revised from +268,000 to +332,000, and the change for March was
revised from +88,000 to +138,000. With these revisions, employment gains in February and March combined were 114,000 higher than previously reported.

Employment Situation News Release
 
Just to address the conspiracy theories, I highly doubt that the Obama Administration would be able to distort the findings of the monthly employment report. Not only is it impractical, but I doubt it would go unnoticed. As all the current leaks show, the Obama Administration is far from watertight. Such a scheme would never have worked. Whether you wish to admit it or not, Obama won fair and square, and the favorable employment report shortly beforehand is simply coincidental. Cooking up baseless theories wont change the fact that Romney lost.
 
And in how many monthly reports are the adjustments big news ?

Hmm...Oct 2012

Any others? Hmmm.

The adjustments you deny exist? You're making yourself look foolish. The seasonally adjusted data is what is always reported. Even the article you cite doesn't't make big news out of the adjustments, I had to read it very carefully to find a mention.
 
Just to address the conspiracy theories, I highly doubt that the Obama Administration would be able to distort the findings of the monthly employment report. Not only is it impractical, but I doubt it would go unnoticed. As all the current leaks show, the Obama Administration is far from watertight. Such a scheme would never have worked. Whether you wish to admit it or not, Obama won fair and square, and the favorable employment report shortly beforehand is simply coincidental. Cooking up baseless theories wont change the fact that Romney lost.

Do not confuse them with logic, it only ruins the illusion they have of an Obama which does not exist.
 
It's a good thing that Obama hasn't succeeded in shutting down land drilling, too, because it was North Dakota that lead the way in job creation.

What, someone beat Texas out of the top spot? Damn, lets get our Arizona type immigration bill passed, then see if we can do better.
 
Absurd. If Presidents could influence employment figures with such ease,
one would think the unemployment rate would reside at a significantly lower rate.

That's absurd, considering for the last 4.5 years employment " gaines" have been reported minus the extremely relevent data of a decreasing labor force.

Sorry, you'll understand if we take any information that comes out of Washington with a grain of salt considering Obama's entire economy is being held up with the FEDS TRILLIONS in perpetual QE.

In typical liberal fassion, its the intent thatd important, not the result as you folks desperately grasp at any data that could be misconstrued as proof of a recovering economy.
 
That's absurd, considering for the last 4.5 years employment " gaines" have been reported minus the extremely relevent data of a decreasing labor force.

Sorry, you'll understand if we take any information that comes out of Washington with a grain of salt considering Obama's entire economy is being held up with the FEDS TRILLIONS in perpetual QE.
Significant trends in the labor force are included in nearly every publication I've read. Regardless, if you want unfiltered, raw data, you could just read the actual reports.

QE doesn't effect the credibility of the employment figures. You and many others in this thread simply don't care for the administration, which is fine, just not a valid reason to call into question the credibility of the data itself.
 
Significant trends in the labor force are included
in nearly every publication I've read. Regardless, if you want unfiltered, raw data, you could just read the actual reports.

QE doesn't effect the credibility of the employment figures. You and many others in this thread simply don't care for the administration, which is fine, just not a valid reason to call into question the credibility of the data itself.


I have good reason not to care for this administration. I didn't vote for these clowns, and tried to warn people in 2007 of what was to come.

In short everything that comes out of this WH is a lie, and that's not just hyperbolic rhetoric, it's the absolute truth.

It's always released manipulated data with qualifiers, or pertinent information ommited that fails to describe a economy that is overall rotten to the core.

A economy that is propped up with the tooth picks of low interest rates, that are being held down with massive unprecendented printing. A better example of failed Liberal economic theory doesn't exist anywhere in the world as left wing posters, foolishly celebrate the suppposed " recovery".

Oh no no no, " trickle down" supply side economocs is for " retards" and " hicks ". Incentivizing those with true wealth to place their money back into the economy is a foolish foolish game and who needs real growth when Obama's Fed appointee can just release a massive amount of liquidity on the markets and banks.

No you guys are going to go through with this economic Jenga, a economy based on printing and massive debt, with one move toppling the whole thing....( Bernake stops printing Monday, by Friday the DOW's going to be at 8,000 )

So spare me the celebrations of jobs added, when you guys won't even address the economy honestly.
 
That's absurd, considering for the last 4.5 years employment " gaines" have been reported minus the extremely relevent data of a decreasing labor force..

Except th e labor force has been increasing the last 2 1/2 years. Some ups and downs but trending up May 2013 had the all time highest labor force.
 
Uhh, it has not been five years, you need to check your math again. 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013.

The unemployment rate hit its peak at 10.0 and is now at 7.6. We have gained 6.3 million jobs since 2010.

Just what exactly is the left supposed to be admitting?

Not even four and a half.

An amusing quote, considering government continually is cutting jobs and the private sector is continually creating them...almost 7 million private sector jobs created.

Like I've said all along, you don't seem to have very good facts.

Uhh...so Obama is interested in big government, but is cutting government jobs. This makes sense to you?


Fair enough. I'll take 6.3 million jobs created in 3 and a half years.

Now that's what I call putting lipstick on a pig. Labor force participation rate is down to 63.4%. Gee, all those jobs that you'll take, are not enough, it is a failure, and of course you will take it, because you can't do any better with liberalism.
 
Now that's what I call putting lipstick on a pig. Labor force participation rate is down to 63.4%.
Yes, imagine that...the Baby Boomers are retiring, more people are going to college than ever before, and the participation rate is slightly lower. Who would have thought? :roll:

Gee, all those jobs that you'll take, are not enough, it is a failure, and of course you will take it, because you can't do any better with liberalism.
This doesn't even make sense.
 
Yes, imagine that...the Baby Boomers are retiring, more people are going to college than ever before, and the participation rate is slightly lower. Who would have thought? :roll:


This doesn't even make sense.

Always an excuse for this failure of a president. Well, at least he has all his scandals to take the attention away from his great economic strides (LOL) he's made.
 
Jobs reports are BS. They used to be more honest, but after "tweaks" to the formula by both Reagan and Clinton, who wanted better numbers, they both got better numbers. LOL.
 
Jobs reports are BS. They used to be more honest, but after "tweaks" to the formula by both Reagan and Clinton, who wanted better numbers, they both got better numbers. LOL.
Oh, what, exactly, are the tweaks you''re claiming?
 
And nobody has ever shown any evidence of any manipulation of the economic data. people like to talk out of their ads like there is, but somehow c a n't show any evidence, let alone proof. And since 99% of the complaints I've heard show gross ignorance of how the data is calculated, the laughingstock among economists are the rabid BLS detractors.

The total work force is down, that's been shown in various posts in the past. So when you have less people actually in the jobs workforce, your unemployment goes down. This whole unemployment debate has become a joke.
 
The total work force is down,
Down from when? From the start of the Recession? Yes. From when Obama took office? No. It's been increasing (up and down but generally up) since January 2011.

So when you have less people actually in the jobs workforce, your unemployment goes down.
Not necessarily.Let's say the Labor Force is 1,000,000 with 950,000 Employed and 50,000 Unemployed. UE rate is 5%.
Next month, The Labor Force drops to 999,500 though Employed doesn't change, but 500 people stop looking for work. UE rate is now 49,500/999,500 = 5.2%

But in any case, that's not manipulation. The UE rate is meant to measure the percent of people who could be working who aren't. People not trying to work could not be working because they can't be hired.
 
Down from when? From the start of the Recession? Yes. From when Obama took office? No. It's been increasing (up and down but generally up) since January 2011.


Not necessarily.Let's say the Labor Force is 1,000,000 with 950,000 Employed and 50,000 Unemployed. UE rate is 5%.
Next month, The Labor Force drops to 999,500 though Employed doesn't change, but 500 people stop looking for work. UE rate is now 49,500/999,500 = 5.2%

But in any case, that's not manipulation. The UE rate is meant to measure the percent of people who could be working who aren't. People not trying to work could not be working because they can't be hired.

U.S. Labor Force Participation Rate Lowest Since 1979

No manipulation? Well I think there is a lot of gamesmanship with unemployment numbers nowadays. Just wait till Obamacare really kicks in next year. The other thing is what kind of jobs are unemployed people getting. So you were a high paid professional who lost his job, then you can't find the same job so you take a lower paying one. That's a short term improvement from not working to working, but for less. I don't call that prosperity. And that's where I have issues with the politics I see on TV. 175,000 new jobs, but what kind? And for whom? Hamburger flipping for engineers? I mean what are we talking about here? Lowering an unemployment rate is only one number that does not automatically translate into prosperity.
 
May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs - CBS News



A modest figure, but one that exceeded expectations by a slight amount. Also important to note is the loss of 14,000 positions at the federal level, reflecting budget cuts, and a sizable decline in manufacturing employment (8k). The full and official report can be found here:

Employment Situation Summary

Does this count the people who dropped off the unemployment list either because their benefits expired or they gave up?
 
Well, the Participation Rate went up in May. But besides that, you're moving the goalposts. You said "The total work force is down,
" which is untrue. The PERCENT of the population in the labor force is down, because while the labor force has increased, it has not increased as much as the population.

No manipulation? Well I think there is a lot of gamesmanship with unemployment numbers nowadays.
Sure...in the spin people put on them. But not in the actual calculations. The numbers are the numbers...what someone says they mean is a different story.

The other thing is what kind of jobs are unemployed people getting. So you were a high paid professional who lost his job, then you can't find the same job so you take a lower paying one. That's a short term improvement from not working to working, but for less. I don't call that prosperity. And that's where I have issues with the politics I see on TV. 175,000 new jobs, but what kind? And for whom? Hamburger flipping for engineers? I mean what are we talking about here? Lowering an unemployment rate is only one number that does not automatically translate into prosperity.
But it's not meant to measure prosperity, or quality.
 
Does this count the people who dropped off the unemployment list either because their benefits expired or they gave up?

There is no unemployment list used in the BLS Labor Force Statistics. There is a household survey. No questions about benefits are asked and it doesn't make any difference if a person was ever eligible for benefits.

As for giving up. The UE rate is a measure of what percent of people who could be working are not. If a person is not trying to get a job, they could not be working because last I checked, employers don't hire people who haven't applied or in any way talked to them.
 
Back
Top Bottom