d-usa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
If I'm reading these right... Here’s the net-net:

net 114,000 new full-time jobs
net 456,000 people who left the unemployed list — discouraged or whatever
net 600,000 people added to part-time workers.
What distinguishes part-time workers from full-time? In general, part-time workers don’t get benefits — like health insurance.


What these numbers seem to be telling us is that it’s too expensive to pay for benefits.

I'll be curious what's the split differential in hirings between full timers with benefits vs. part times w/o benefits?

Any source for these numbers? Because they don't match either article posted, and none of them give any number of people who left the unemployment list for whatever reason. They only give 873,000 who are not working.

 Manchu wrote:
The terms are "total employment" (873k more in September) and "total payroll employment" (114k more in September).

 whembly wrote:
Maybe some charts would be illuminating:

 Manchu wrote:
Folks, please please please read: the figure isn't 873k new jobs, the figure is 873k more people employed. By contrast there are 114k new jobs.

 Frazzled wrote:
suddenly there are 873,000 new jobs.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Maybe some charts would be illuminating:

They must be charting economic indicators in Narnia. "Unemployment Rate Without Recovery Plan"? Lolwut? And I didn't know the recession ended in mid-2009. That's great news!

 whembly wrote:
We're technically not in a recession...

 d-usa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Anyone hear about the guy that tweeted this was a product of the Chicago machine? I loled.
But yeah this is the product of more long term unemployed and discouraged workers dropping off than actual employment risig. The timing would be suspicious if it hadn't been coming for awhile.

Second time that commend has been made, and again, did you guys read the article?

Unemployment unexpectedly fell to 7.8% in September, down from 8.1%, as a survey of U.S. households showed 873,000 more Americans had jobs compared to a month earlier.

So not quite a million people got jobs, but the reason the number dropped is because people stopped looking for work?

Pet liberal economist wrote: A plunge and a stabilization at a depressed level, which has now gone on for almost three years. Everything else is just noise.

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So not quite a million people got jobs, but the reason the number dropped is because people stopped looking for work?

@d-usa: If you want to understand the Republican perspective on this figure, you'll need to squeeze your eyes tightly shut, put your fingers in your ears, and yell "Obama will destroy civilization" at the very top of your lungs.

 d-usa wrote:
Everything sucks, and if you think stuff is getting better then you are pro-Obama and cheating.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/welch-unemployment-rate/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Despite the slight decline in unemployment in September, unadjusted U.S. unemployment has remained relatively stagnant since May, and has shown little variation from May's 8.0% unadjusted rate. Greater change will be needed before unemployed and underemployed Americans begin to feel relief, which is likely reflected in their diminished levels of hope. Stagnant unemployment rates may be leading to feelings that there will not be an improvement in the near future.

 Frazzled wrote:

Aren't they also saying 800,000 joined the employed or something? I'm seriously not getting it, unless its bs shenanigans.

The rate declined from 8.1 percent because the number of people who said they were employed soared by 873,000 — an encouraging sign for an economy that's been struggling to create enough jobs.

 Frazzled wrote:

More employed equals more jobs than previously surveyed. So either their methodology is dog gak or suddenly there are 873,000 new jobs.

 Frazzled wrote:
Those 873,000 didn't magically become employed without a new job. Its either statistical glitch or they screwed up in their previous reports.

Manchu wrote:Lol have you even read Krugman today?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/democrat-derangement-syndrome/

Paul Krugman wrote:Everything else is just noise

 whembly wrote:
Chongra...

/thread

 d-usa wrote:
And that is why we can't have nice things.

 Chongara wrote:
Well then, I guess I'm just glad that I was too lazy to make the graph showing the vigorous state romney would leave the economy in, with rising prosperity and powerful economic growth.

I don't think BLS cooked numbers. I think a bunch of Dems lied about getting jobs. That would have same effect

 reds8n wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/05/966381/meet-the-conservatives-who-think-todays-job-numbers-are-a-conspiracy/

I don't think BLS cooked numbers. I think a bunch of Dems lied about getting jobs. That would have same effect

Is there no end to the perfidiousness of the electorate !

The most recent head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who was appointed by President Bush and left office at the end of his term earlier this year, is pushing back on the claims of Jack Welch and others that today’s jobs report numbers were manipulated somehow:
Keith Hall, who served as Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2008 until 2012, said in an interview Friday that there is no way someone at the agency could change any of the data from its two monthly employment surveys. The significant improvement in the unemployment rate may reflect normal statistical errors in the sampling process, he said, but that has nothing to do with manipulation.
“There’s nothing wrong with the numbers,” said Mr. Hall. “The only issue is the interpretation of the numbers. The numbers are what they are.”
For September, the politically important unemployment rate fell to 7.8% in September from 8.1% the prior month, according to the Labor Department. That was the lowest level since January 2009 and well below the 8.1% forecast of economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires. The unemployment rate estimate is derived from a survey of households, which came up with an estimate that 863,000 jobs were added for the month.
But the separate establishment survey from which the official payrolls number is derived reported a more modest seasonally adjusted gain of 114,000 jobs in September. That was below the consensus forecast of 118,000, though the previous two months were revised higher.
Mr. Hall said the inconsistent reports reflect the different samples used in the two surveys, one focused on households the other on businesses. The establishment survey has a huge sample size of 141,000 business and agencies covering 486,000 worksites, whereas the household survey covers just 60,000 homes.
“The household survey is much smaller. When you look at something like labor force and employment levels, the uncertainty of those numbers is much larger,” said Mr. Hall. “Within two months, the household survey could show the unemployment rate eking back up.”
The fact that we’re even arguing over a nonsense theory like this just shows how idiotic our politics has become, and yes in this case it is a certain wing of the Republican Party that is at fault. Is it possible that the BLS reports may not be correctly measuring the state of the Labor Market? I would say that it is and that we probably ought to do what we can to make sure those statistics are accurate. The argument that this month’s report was politically manipulated, though, is the equivalent of 9/11 Trutherism, Birtherism, and last week’s conspiracy of the week, Poll Denialism.