Last Updated:October 21 @ 05:56 pm

What is going on with the jobs numbers?

By GOPUSA Staff

The Labor Department released the latest monthly figures which show an unemployment rate of 7.8%. As expected, Barack Obama and his team are spinning in full force that this is a sign of economic "recovery." But to a number of people, including former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, something is a little "strange."

First the Obama sound bite: The unemployment rate dropped from 8.1% to 7.8%. One can explain the decrease in any number of ways, but what's puzzling is just how the labor data seem conflicting in some parts and just plain wrong in others.

Here's a report from Fox News:

President Obama's team touted the numbers as a sign the economy is improving. Mitt Romney, along with several economists, expressed deep skepticism about the report.

The data even elicited a conspiracy theory from former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, who tweeted: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers."

The Labor Department reported that the rate dipped in September from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. It was a glimmer of good news for Obama, who's trying to recover from a disappointing debate performance and whose central argument is that the economy is moving in the right direction.

In a speech this morning, Obama said, "It's a reminder that this country has come too far to turn back now." Come too far? Is he serious? This is the worst recovery ever.

But skeptics pointed out that not only is 7.8 percent unemployment hardly a "real recovery," but the report reflected an uptick in part-time jobs and the number of self-employed. Further, they stressed that there appeared to be a huge disconnect between the modest number of new jobs reported and the significant decrease in the unemployment rate.

The Labor Department, based on a broad survey of employers, said 114,000 jobs were added in September. But the unemployment rate itself is based on a separate "household survey," which showed a whopping 873,000 new jobs in September.

"This must be an anomaly," former Congressional Budget Office director Doug Holtz-Eakin said in a snap analysis of the numbers. "It is out of line with any of the other data.."

Holtz-Eakin noted the household survey is smaller, suggesting it is not as reliable. He called estimate of 873,000 new jobs "implausible." He said the report was otherwise "solid," but reflected "the economy is merely moving sideways."

Mitt Romney pointed out the obvious which will probably be glossed over by the media: "This is not what a real recovery looks like. We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July."

So is Jack Welch right? Are these Chicago-style Labor numbers?

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 9.6/10 (470 votes cast)
What is going on with the jobs numbers?, 9.6 out of 10 based on 470 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

88 Comments

  1. pistol packing mamaComment by txgoatlady
    October 5, 2012 @ 12:03 pm

    I’m as confused as everyone. Apparently this “household survey” is a phone call to people to ask if they have a job? I don’t know how that is supposed to work. We have already heard that people abandoning landlines makes polling more difficult. Wouldn’t it effect this type of survey as well? Are they just completely making stuff up now or what? Obama calls Romney a liar, but here is definitive proof that Obama himself will stretch the truth beyond all reasonable limits.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (141 votes cast)
    • trinketComment by trinket
      October 5, 2012 @ 2:13 pm

      I’m not in the least surprised by this “amazing” jobs number. It’s just more of this administration’s “creative” counting (read lies). The disgusting and disgraceful campaign that Obama has waged, the vile lies, just boggle the mind. For instance:
      Romney was responsible for the death of a woman (lie)He was not.
      Romney did not pay any taxes (lie) He did. I could go on but you get the idea. Spin, smear and lie; those are the strategies of Obama and his cohorts.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (124 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      October 5, 2012 @ 3:05 pm

      I can’t believe anyone would attempt to derive unemployment numbers from a telephone survey. That would make it about as accurate as a typical poll. And how can there be such a wide discrepancy as between the 114,000 new jobs reported by the Labor Department and the 873,000 reported by the “survey”? What kind of survey could produce such distorted results? This 873,000 number is as phony as a 3-dollar bill. I’d like to know who the source was for that claim. We’re definitely not getting the whole picture here.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (90 votes cast)
    • yoda1Comment by yoda1
      October 5, 2012 @ 3:15 pm

      everyone needs to realize; Teachers are not on unemployment anymore. Hollywood has gone back to work after hiatus.
      What is scary is Obama / Government wants the defense contractors not to warn their employees that they may be laid off in January. it would have an effect on Obama getting re-elected. This is against Labor Laws!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (92 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      October 5, 2012 @ 3:24 pm

      PartTime Employment suddenly went up from 8 million to 8.6 million!
      A convenient outlier from this Household employment statistical analysis.
      There is no real reason to believe that there was a sudden huge improvement in our economy to warrant 600k new part time jobs, unless Obama suddenly put all his volunteers in his campaign on a payroll!
      Looking forward to future BLS reports when they ‘correct’ the numbers from previous months.

      14.7 % number for unemployed plus under-employed is still stable and has not improved!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (70 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      October 5, 2012 @ 3:38 pm

      “The Labor Department, based on a broad survey of employers, said 114,000 jobs were added in September. But the unemployment rate itself is based on a separate “household survey,” which showed a whopping 873,000 new jobs in September. . .Holtz-Eakin noted the household survey is smaller, suggesting it is not as reliable. He called estimate of 873,000 new jobs “implausible.”

      Someone in government needs to clarify WHY the Department of Labor says employers only added 114,000 job last month, but some random “telephone” survey reveals that 873,000 people are now back at work.

      Were the calls actually made, did those called LIE, or has the administration once again LIED?

      As Adolf Hitler frequently said: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (61 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      October 5, 2012 @ 3:44 pm

      We need to push for clarification on how this Household Survey was carried out, what sample size, how they made sure to get a representative and non-skewed set of participants.

      This number of new workers from the HouseHold Survey is unbelievably high, and compared to the hundreds of lines in the BLS report, it is scary that the entire report is so skewed by this single line item, without any further explanation or analysis of WHY this number was so super high just for one month out of the entire year!

      maybe they had a to-be-called list of known new part time workers, instead of a representative list of Americans.

      But this anomaly NEEDS to be explained and PUBLICLY and REAL SOON!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (35 votes cast)
    • mrbil114Comment by mrbil114
      October 5, 2012 @ 4:01 pm

      Why are you surprised? Just as he got the Obama care passed with dirty dealing and under the table promises he got the Surpreme court to somehow agree with him and uses the EPA to put the coal Industry out of business. And we must remember he said in his 2008 campaign he said under my plan the gas prices will more than double, utility rates will sky rocket and it will bankrupt the coal Industry – so no surprise to me. All these things he fortold in advance and they still voted for him. The way I see it 80% of the blacks will vote for him because he is black, 95% of the democrats will vote for him because he is a democrat and 88% of the Hispanics will vote for him hoping to get free citizenship. No matter what he does or don’t do he will probably win. That is not the American way !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (37 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      October 5, 2012 @ 4:12 pm

      Agent007, someone needs to call the White House out on this and demand to know exactly how they came up with their figures and how they can be verified. There are just too many question marks here.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (26 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      October 6, 2012 @ 3:16 pm

      Here is a link to a Technical Note describing some of the methodology used by BLS to determine its numbers:

      http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm

      One interesting part is where it lists the margin of error, and that they accept a 90 % criterium, which means that there might always be a couple of tenths of a percent error in the unemployment rate estimate.

      Also, they work based on a 3 month period, so that the September estimate is only based on the data from one month, which will be corrected in each of the following 2 months to take into account missing returns from the 60 k sample size.

      The 60 k indicates the number of surveys ‘handed out’, but typically they don’t get all of those returned, or not returned in a timely fashion.

      Also, this Tech Note indicates what is being counted as ‘employed’, which is good information to read.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • thecitizenComment by thecitizen
      October 6, 2012 @ 4:27 pm

      Maybe this article from Cain TV will help clarify things.

      “Here comes the spin but real unemployment remains unchanged and horrible.”

      Cain TV, 5 Oct 2012.

      By DAN CALABRESE –

      U6 unemployment is what matters – it remains unchanged at 14.7 %.

      This morning’s jobs report is giving Obama’s media backers a chance to change the narrative and you’ll be hearing throughout the day how this is “good news for the president,” because unemployment has finally dipped below 8 percent to 7.8 percent, which is the lowest it’s been in 44 months. This will be accompanied by their celebratory announcement of a statistic you’ve probably never even heard before, that of an increase of 873,000 in employment from the “household survey.”
      None of this represents anything good but you have to understand what the numbers mean in order to recognize that.

      So let’s go through it:
      - The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that only 114,000 new jobs were added in September. That is slighly better than the 96,000 that were originally reported in August (later oddly revised to more than 140,000) but it is still terrible and still well below what you need to even keep up with population growth.
      - The household survey includes people who took part-time jobs, which is why it says there are 456,000 fewer “unemployed” people, because you are not unemployed if you work at McDonald’s. They are still underemployed, however, for purposes of being counted in the U6 unemployment number, which is why that figure remains unchnaged at 14.7 percent.
      - The fact that 7.8 percent is the lowest we’ve seen U4 in 44 months only demonstrates how horrible the past 44 months have been. During the Bush Administration, U4 stayed around 5 percent from the end of his first-term recession until the financial market meltdown in 2008. The recession has been over since 2009 but unemployment has remained at or above 8 percent ever since. A slight drop now to 7.8 percent is mere statistical noise, especially with U6 remaining unchanged.

      What is going to happen over the course of the next several days, however, is a competition of narratives over what these new numbers mean. You’ll hear a lot about 7.8 percent and you’ll hear a lot about the household survey number of 873,000. You won’t get much explanation to put them in context, except in a political context. But you should know what these numbers really mean and now you do.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)
  2. billwvComment by billwv
    October 5, 2012 @ 12:15 pm

    This is the latest government jobs photo [controlled by Ozero] to make the Prez look good before the election. Probably all these numbers will be shown to be flukes and people are not as ‘dumb’ as the skewed [so-called] experts think they are. When Romney drubbed Ozero as badly as he did in the debate, the Dems had to come up with something and this was the ‘something’.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (70 votes cast)
    • extyrequeenComment by extyrequeen
      October 5, 2012 @ 1:44 pm

      it;s very sad when we have a corupted govt. and a corupt media that is covering up this incompetent bufood in the white house
      and i will bet that next months job number will be 7 or less…

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (73 votes cast)
    • constance2Comment by constance2
      October 5, 2012 @ 4:01 pm

      Yes it is so sad that so many are corrupt.
      Mitt Romney will have a rough road ahead of him.
      C

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (19 votes cast)
  3. bizzybuzzerComment by bizzybuzzer
    October 5, 2012 @ 1:54 pm

    WHY is 0 allowed another day in office?

    He needs drug out of there by the Knapp of the neck and thrown in jail. Congress won’t even warn him, much less throw him out on the street.

    January won’t be the end of him, remember. We are going to be borrowing money to pay his lush retirement DDUP. Is that how America pays its most serious law breakers ?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (55 votes cast)
  4. Peter PirzadehComment by Peter Pirzadeh
    October 5, 2012 @ 1:59 pm

    Why this Chicago style lie be any different than the rest? Once a liar, always deceitful, especially if you are trying from a stinging loss.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (57 votes cast)
  5. Jota_Comment by Jota_
    October 5, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

    Find the answers here
    http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

    The central problem with labor statistics, if there were ten people in the labor force and all ten were working there would be zero unemployment, despite the fact 312 million others did not have a job and are not counted

    From the webpage above select “Participation rate”

    We, as a nation, have more mouth to feed and less hands in the labor pool as measured by the percentage of population

    The one question the webpage does not answer, where did all thos jobs come from???

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (38 votes cast)
    • pistol packing mamaComment by txgoatlady
      October 5, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

      I heard they were counting all these jobs people supposedly are performing from home. I suppose that is what they got out of the household survey. So if someone is selling their junk on eBay, they have a “job” according to Obama. Never mind that they are probably living in their parent’s basement or on welfare.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (54 votes cast)
  6. James UrbanComment by James Urban
    October 5, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

    This editorial explains much.

    IBD Editorials

    Viewpoint
    Obama Puts Far-Left Erica Groshen In Key Labor Post

    By BILL WILSON
    Posted 07/18/2012 06:37 PM ET

    Five months ago Barack Obama nominated union backer, liberal economist and Federal Reserve bureaucrat Erica Groshen to lead the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) — the agency best known for calculating the nation’s unemployment rate each month.

    Obviously Groshen’s nomination was yet another sop to organized labor — which doled out big dollars and major manpower to help elect Obama in 2008 (and which has already been rewarded handsomely for its efforts).

    It was also yet another endorsement of the failed Keynesian interventionism that Obama has continued to foist on our private sector ever since he was elected — with disastrous consequences for our nation’s economy.

    But this particular appointment represents much more than just another lifetime left winger being tapped by Obama to fill a lofty taxpayer-funded perch. For starters, Groshen’s background is more explicitly linked to overt anti-American ideologies than any Obama appointee since his infamous “green jobs czar” Van Jones.

    Such radical ideological moorings are cause for real concern given that Groshen is being asked to preside over an agency where the inviolability of hard, methodologically obtained data — not the specter of ideological influence — is vital to maintaining institutional neutrality and credibility.

    In fact public confidence in BLS methodology and impartiality is much more essential than that — as this agency’s unemployment and job growth data consistently drive global financial markets and move public opinion like no other economic indicators.

    Moreover, Groshen is being asked to lead this agency at a time when its data are being compared and contrasted not only with more credible alternative measures of labor utilization but also prior unemployment promises from the Obama administration.

    Every statistic counts — but we also must be able to count on the veracity of every statistic (particularly those that come stamped with the imprimatur of officialdom).

    In other words, this is the absolute worst possible time to nominate a BLS commissioner with suspect associations — one who could easily be perceived as giving an unfair advantage to certain constituencies regarding the release of this information (or possibly even manipulating the presentation of the data itself to paint a more flattering view of the administration’s job creation efforts).

    One of the most glaring ideological markers in Groshen’s background is her choice to send at least one of her children to Camp Kinderland — a communist-founded institution that used Soviet symbols and sang Soviet anthems during the mid-20th century while urging its members to “vote communist.”

    Camp Kinderland’s own website brags that it, “is true to the vision of its founders,” so it is no surprise that its leftist advocacy continues to this day. The camp mobilized dozens of campers, staff and alumni to participate in the Occupy Wall Street events — which their newsletter referred to as an opportunity for its supporters to “raise their voices and declare the power of the 99%.”

    Of course when it comes to regulating business Groshen has no interest in helping the little man, ironically. She’s overtly hostile to small businesses and believes that the jobs they create are inferior to those created by large corporations.

    “It is clear that something that is good for workers … is happening in large firms,” a 1998 paper coauthored by Groshen concludes. “From this perspective, any public policy advantage awarded to small firms (such as labor or environmental standard exemptions) should provide cause for worry.”

    Groshen’s preferred method of alleviating this “worry”? Heavier regulation of small businesses — which is one of the very last things our economy needs right now.

    Why? Because despite Obama’s unprecedented interventionism America’s real unemployment rate is currently hovering at 11% (assuming a constant labor participation rate over the last four years). That’s considerably higher than the “official” 8.2% rate reported by the BLS (which doesn’t count the millions of people who have given up looking for work over the last three-and-a-half years).

    It’s also twice the 5.6% rate that Obama’s economists projected for this point in time when they were clamoring for passage of the “stimulus” bill in February 2009.

    Statistics matter — and right now the BLS needs to cling to every bit of its credibility when it releases them. Confirming Erica Groshen would be a sure-fire way to substantially erode the public’s confidence that the data released by the agency are not ideologically skewed.

    The Senate should reject Groshen’s nomination and call on Obama to submit a choice more compatible with the objective role of this agency.

    Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/071812-618634-obama-puts-far-left-erica-groshen-in-key-labor-post.htm#ixzz28SBOdMYG

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (51 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      October 5, 2012 @ 2:49 pm

      Exactly, ” participation rate ”

      http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
      Not Seasonally AdjustedSeries title:
      (Unadj) Labor Force Participation RateLabor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate

      AVERAGE for the year
      2002 66.6
      2003 66.2
      2004 66
      2005 66
      2006 66.2
      2007 66
      2008 66
      2009 65.4
      2010 64.7
      2011 64.1
      2012 (nine month average, 63.7)

      THis is the number people need to be paying attention

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (28 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      October 5, 2012 @ 3:14 pm

      Jota, are those numbers percentages, and do you know what they represent exactly? I tried clicking on your link to the Department of Labor statistics, but the site indicated the database was unavailable.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (6 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      October 5, 2012 @ 3:15 pm

      I should add why this number is so much more important than claimed unemployment numbers.

      It determines the percentage of workers to Social Security recipients, and shortens the expected time it will remain solvent. It also causes unfunded liabilities to increase

      **** IF ***** we just had BAD unemployment numbers we would have a tough time NOW, but having a falling number of individuals participating in the Labor Force says you are in for a BAD FUTURE

      AND IT IS STILL FALLING!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (19 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      October 5, 2012 @ 3:47 pm

      Sorry, the link is the result of a query, NOT the actual query so won’t work, knew that and still blundered by posting it.

      Use this link THEN select ”participation rate”
      http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

      And yes, it is a percentage of “Civilian noninstitutional population” Which is currently reported as 243,772,000 out of a population of 312 million. It is individuals 16 years or older, whom are not in the military, or a mental institution.

      Which is a misleading number for those in a mental institution, because liberals are still counted as part of the work force.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (20 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      October 5, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

      Jota: Don’t you still have to click on the “Retrieve Data” button? There’s just a bunch of blank boxes otherwise, and when you click on “Retrieve Data” it takes you to the page which indicates that the database is unavailable.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      October 5, 2012 @ 4:24 pm

      Yes, click on the “Retrieve Data” button

      As for the “blank boxes”

      You did put a check mark in one of the boxes under the column for either “Not seasonally adjusted” or “Seasonally
      adjusted” ?

      Go to the row which has “Participation rate” then a check in the box for one of the columns for “Not seasonally adjusted” or “Seasonally adjusted”

      Can select both “Not seasonally adjusted” or “Seasonally
      adjusted” at the same time

      If that does not work just play with it until you get it working then Department of Labor can count one more as those working.

      (sorry, could not resist)

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (7 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      October 5, 2012 @ 4:34 pm

      Thanks for explaining that. It works now. Very interesting, I’m going to bookmark the site and play around with it a little more. You’re right, those are the numbers which really matter.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      October 5, 2012 @ 4:49 pm

      You are welcome

      And we discovered how they got those part time employment numbers so high

      Department of Labor Caller: At any time in the last month did you get your Internet browser to work, which was not working last month?

      Unemployed worker: Yes!

      Department of Labor, 800,000 more individuals this month than last found part time work!

      Hahaha, mystery solved

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • yoldsComment by yolds
      October 5, 2012 @ 8:35 pm

      Jota,
      Important to also include that under Obama, 3.7 million unemployed transfered to Social Security disability because they could not find jobs and ran out of unemployment. That also explains why the 63.7 exists and unemployment dropped (slightly) during the last year to begin with……

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
  7. wedeyComment by wedey
    October 5, 2012 @ 2:22 pm

    I read that the government added l0,000 new jobs. How can that be if we are broke.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (25 votes cast)
  8. paradigmComment by paradigm
    October 5, 2012 @ 2:41 pm

    Just fyi; from the NYTimes:

    In case you still believe that the models the bureau uses are being manipulated to put President Obama in a better light, note that there are not even any political appointees currently serving in the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They’re all career civil servants who have worked under both Republican and Democratic administrations. (The commissioner of the bureau is supposed to be a political appointee, but right now that position is vacant. The acting commissioner, Jack Galvin, has been temporarily holding the position since January, and he is a career civil servant.)

    I also called the Bureau of Labor Statistics to ask about another conspiracy theory I heard: that the bureau changed one question on its household survey recently. Fran Horvath, a senior economist, said that was not so.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.1/5 (21 votes cast)
  9. letmethinkComment by letmethink
    October 5, 2012 @ 2:41 pm

    Duh!
    It all the welfare waiver people with their new ‘jobs’.
    The phone list probably still has the Welfare Dept letterhead on it.

    I just love to see that list, but, hell we can’t even see if the president is an American Citizen.

    Is he still using that phone social security number?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.1/5 (20 votes cast)
    • smartwayComment by smartway
      October 5, 2012 @ 8:13 pm

      Fellow Americans! Adolf Hitler long ago said: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it… eventually they will believe it”. Lies…Lies…more Lies…. You’ll see the connection here the BIG picture=> http://www.ObamasRealFather.com
      Please spread the word…NOW!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  10. rustypatComment by rustypat
    October 5, 2012 @ 2:43 pm

    “Liars figure and figures lie” … or something like that. But it would seem that in spite of the inaccurate way that unemployment figures are reported (i.e. they don’t count people that have been out of work for a long time, etc.) … here we have a case of the figures catching a lie.

    If you have 10 people and 1 person is out of work it is 10% unemployment. But if 1 person loses their job every 6 months for 4 years, you have 8 people out of work, so a normal person would say we have 80% unemployment. NOPE … since only 1 person is receiving unemployment benefits still within the 6 month interval, it is STILL only 10% unemployment … the other 7 that don’t have jobs don’t count anymore because they are assumed to have given up looking for a job.

    That’s the essence of how you can have nearly 1/3 of the workforce that is not full time employed (unemployed or part-time) and yet the numbers can still be 8%, when they probably should be more like 20%.

    This isn’t an Obama thing originally … but after 4 years of 8% … it isn’t still 8%, let alone the BS 7.8% that he is claiming magically changed. The reality is that there is a HELLUVA LOT more people out of work now than at anytime since the Great Depression.

    Rational and sane people see right through it. Obama fan-boys will continue to drink the kool-aid as long as Obama keeps on serving it … no matter what flavor it is.

    Obama-Nation is an Abomination.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (30 votes cast)
  11. Joe LettieriComment by Joe Lettieri
    October 5, 2012 @ 2:52 pm

    Christmas is coming up,for all you deep thinkers…..Every year the employment changes because of all the PART TIME HELP during the holiday season.Why is this so hard to figure out?This muslim just goes on and on with his lies and all the idiots believe…..even Republicans……we must have the largest crop of dysfunctional dishonest people in our Government and media that we have ever had.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.1/5 (23 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      October 5, 2012 @ 6:38 pm

      yes, holiday season will have an effect, which is why LBS uses ‘seasonal corrections’ to off-set that effect as best as they can.

      It’s too early to count new hires for holiday season at this point (september month).

      However, somehow the 60,000 people that were called to get these statistics might not have been such a representative group this year.

      I’m still giving the BLS bean counters the benefit of the doubt, but have more serious doubts about the leadership in the BLS. Did they use the normal 60k sample size or did they make it much smaller for one month, and picked the sample with the politically most beneficial outcomes?

      Until they give us details, we will only be able to guess.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • redseaComment by redsea
      October 6, 2012 @ 7:01 am

      007, the numbers are not yet seasonally adjusted. It is noted on the BLS website where all of the numbers are published.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      October 6, 2012 @ 9:31 am

      COrrect redsea,

      But the estimate for the TOTAL number of expected Holiday season part time workers is around 700 k.

      I’m pretty sure that most of those have not yet been hired, and certainly were not yet hired in September!

      Great work on your BLS data summary man! :)

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  12. Mark FrancesComment by Mark Frances
    October 5, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

    Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.9/5 (11 votes cast)
  13. ellmanComment by ellman
    October 5, 2012 @ 3:01 pm

    Hey everyone! Look at the U6 unemployment number. It did not change. The U6 number is the real number. The U2 number that is reported is simply the political number and does not even begin to give a real picture.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (12 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      October 5, 2012 @ 3:18 pm

      Give me a hint: What are U2 and U6?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.3/5 (3 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      October 5, 2012 @ 4:37 pm

      Can anyone who read the question give me an answer? At least two people read it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      October 5, 2012 @ 6:40 pm

      U6 is at 14.7 % it is the percentage of unemployed PLUS underemployed.
      Both are based on a workforce calculated based on participation rate. Participation rate has gone down over the last 4 years, which is an additional problem!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  14. KonnieComment by Konnie
    October 5, 2012 @ 3:14 pm

    The number of “jobs created” is readjusted downward every week. The unemployment % is never readjusted to match. Listen to Donald Trump who says unemployment is around 20-22%. This new unemployment rate is a disgusting display of a “by any means necessary” lie perpetrated upon the citizens by our government.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.4/5 (16 votes cast)
    • 2bakidComment by 2bakid
      October 5, 2012 @ 4:48 pm

      by any dirty trick or malicious lie they can perpertrate on us just to stay in POWER.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      October 6, 2012 @ 9:36 am

      To be fair, the 22 % from the Donald is not doing us any favors, as he pulls it out of a hat, and it is not a number based on real facts.
      Not saying it may not be that bad, but based on debatable and verifyable numbers, it is no more than a very wild guess on his part.
      I would urge you all to stick to the facts, U6 is at 14.7 percent. Real job growth was an anemic 114 k, which is not enough to keep up with population growth.
      Manufacturing LOST jobs, and major industry did NOT GAIN jobs.
      Participation rate is at an all time low, and people are dropping off unemployment lists into welfare lists. Not really where we want to go!
      The costs to pay for the unemmployement benefits and welfare are going through the roof, and are adding rapidly more and more to our national debt!
      New part time jobs at best, are replacing good income jobs for those that are now forced to take them.
      The new Obama normal: let’s half people’s income and then rejoice around a number that is slightly under 8 % !
      That’s what’s happening. This country is getting Poorer by the day.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  15. katierobinetteComment by katierobinette
    October 5, 2012 @ 3:28 pm

    OK, so in the past month of September, employers in the US (pop 315 million) created 114,000 new jobs. Employers in Canada, with a pop of 35 million added 52,000 new. Just so you know…we have a Conservative government up here. Obama has nothing to feel even remotely OK about!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (16 votes cast)
  16. pontoonComment by pontoon
    October 5, 2012 @ 3:37 pm

    Here we go again! Every indicator points in a sideways at best momement! Folks this can not be the truth–someone has there hands in the numbers to get someone to look better than what that O did at the debate. When he can not read or get the answers from the monitor he draws a blank! Help spread the message Mitt WON and he is in store to win the election!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (11 votes cast)
  17. Joshua WarrenComment by Joshua Warren
    October 5, 2012 @ 3:59 pm

    Household polling? Exquisite timing? (right after Obama gets a 90-minute “Mitch-slapping”)? A whole 3-point drop (8.1 to 7.8)? Why does there seem to be something just not quite believable about this?

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (15 votes cast)
    • 2bakidComment by 2bakid
      October 5, 2012 @ 4:52 pm

      Because it is a BALD_FACE LIE…. cant win …one on one… got to play dirty pool

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (9 votes cast)
  18. rwjacksrComment by rwjacksr
    October 5, 2012 @ 4:01 pm

    The Jobs numbers have always been wrong and can and have been manipulated by the Labor Department to say what ever they want them to say to a point,to them it does not matter if they look wrong because they believe most Americans are to dumb to see their manipulations. They are trying their best to help out a failing president who has never really had a job where he had to think for himself that is why my 10 year old grandchild could have out debated him, he may be a master/bater but he is no debater.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (7 votes cast)
  19. middlegroundComment by middleground
    October 5, 2012 @ 4:08 pm

    Ignore every figures coming out of this administration’s and look up the U6 unemployment figure. It include those who have quit looking, those who have taken other temporary jobs, etc. This figure is around 18% nationally, but in Nevada is 22%.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  20. constance2Comment by constance2
    October 5, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

    In reply to Agent 007: maybe they had a to-be-called list of known new part time workers, instead of a representative list of Americans.

    But this anomaly NEEDS to be explained and PUBLICLY and REAL SOON!

    I agree but how can we fight this? How????

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.2/5 (6 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      October 5, 2012 @ 6:42 pm

      By insisting on an explanation of what it was that constitutes those 600 k new part time jobs!

      That’s an 8 % increase in part time jobs that was rougly at 8 million for long time, suddenly in a single month!

      It’s just not credible without further analysis and explanation where and what these jobs are!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • redseaComment by redsea
      October 6, 2012 @ 6:53 am

      You can go to the Bureau of Labor statistics and do some analysis. All of the numbers are published there, broken down in total and by industry, and with a note that they are preliminary numbers not “seasonally” adjusted. Supposing the 600,000 number is true, that is about 11,500 jobs per state if we divide it evenly among all of the states. It is hardly impressive given that it is 3 months before Christmas. As well it is a harvest season where the agricultural industries hire temporary laborers. I wonder how the seasonal adjustments will look in January after the Holiday season? While I don’t support the numbers, even it if it is true, it is not still not impressive. The increase of jobs each month is on a downward trend, but do you think the average citizen bothers to go to the BLS and do any analysis?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      October 6, 2012 @ 9:41 am

      Red Sea,

      Agreed that we can verify the numbers at the BLS website.

      BUT…. the number of 600,000 part time jobs pulled out of the high hat of HouseHold Survey data is not subdivided or further explained in those numbers.
      I want to see the statistical analysis, including the survey methods and questions, that led them to the mathematical result of 600,000.
      I want to know what the question in the survey was that determined whether or not the surveyed person on the phone now had a part time job!
      Also, I want to know what kind of part time jobs we are talking about here.
      Most likely they did not even bother to collect data to determine where / what those part time jobs are!
      They analyze the 114 k number to death, with multiple sub categories, but a much larger number of close to 600 k remains completely open ended, a full mystery for us all at this point in time!

      The 600 k number would compare with a total number of expected part timers for the Holiday Season of 700 k. Most of those still have to be hired, so could not have been part of this September report! So where in our society can we find those 600 k new part timers ??????
      That’s the outrage for me!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  21. hjb2730Comment by hjb2730
    October 5, 2012 @ 4:35 pm

    But the unemployment rate itself is based on a separate “household survey,”
    Am I the only one who never heard about this household survey ? In my book until they come off the actual unemployment roll , they are NOT employed !

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      October 6, 2012 @ 9:54 am

      The problem is that this HouseHold Survey has been the basis for such numbers for years.
      What we don’t know if the survey questions might have changed, or if the 60,000 sample was not as representative this time, or what this very high number of 600 k maybe is a statistical outlier.
      Also, we don’t know where these 600 k part time jobs are, or what they are. Knowing that would help a lot solving this mystery.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  22. mrsgunnut10Comment by mrsgunnut10
    October 5, 2012 @ 4:46 pm

    During my last 10 1/2 Years in the United States Air Force, I worked as an Aircraft Maintenance Analysis Techician. My job was to Analyze any System of any Aircraft that had a malfunction more than twice in the same System. This new 7.8 % Unemployment Rate stinks of Fraud by Obama’s White House Lawyer’s. They are just trying to fool the American Voters into thinking that Obama is the “best” one for the White House. ALL of them should be fired on the spot, right now. Any person, that has any sense at all, knows that these figures can’t be real and are being manipulated by Obama’s Lackeys. I just hope that the American Voters are not so gullable that they can’t see that they are not correct. Thank you for your time. TSgt., USAF Retired.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (9 votes cast)
    • 2bakidComment by 2bakid
      October 5, 2012 @ 5:07 pm

      Right on Sarge… abtw THANK YOU for your service to our great Country.. my husband is also a retired T/Sgt USAF now the reason for mypost is this .. I’m afraid there are to many still drinking at the O’s KoolAid fountain

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • 2bakidComment by 2bakid
      October 5, 2012 @ 6:49 pm

      Mrs Gunnut
      I Believe ur right.. there is something rotten ,,somewhere. this does not pass the smell test.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  23. Pingback: Honesty Is Not An Option

  24. jaijacobiaComment by jaijacobia
    October 5, 2012 @ 5:27 pm

    Statistics don’t lie, but Liars do. Obama’s LYING again. This job report is just like the rest of his lies. A LIE. You can change the numbers to make it say anything you want. Course the next media event will be the lying Democrat/media cult saying, “It doesn’t really matter. And besides, he inherited it from George Bush.”
    He was stoned on drugs at the debate as anyone who grew up in the stoner days could tell if they weren’t so astounded at his nerve.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      October 5, 2012 @ 6:51 pm

      there are many ways to lie with statistics though!

      there are innocent subtle ways, but also unethical and nasty ones.

      This so called Household survey is apparently based on 60k phonecalls to ask about employment status. This is supposed to be a representative sample size.

      Things that can easily go wrong are:
      - sample is NOT representative and contains disproportional amounts of certain groups of people.
      - definitions might be changed on what it is that’s being counted as ‘part time employed’. maybe they changed the rules a bit and many people that were previously not counted, are now counted??

      Unethical things that might be done, is to split the 60 k sample into let’s say 6 groups of 10 k, and pick the results of the group that gives the most beneficial results for the political purpose? Not saying that this happened, just that it would be a way to manipulate the results. It would require higher level LBS employees/managers to pull such a stunt.

      For now, I am not accusing anybody of purposely creating such strange results. It could just be a statistical outlier, but it sure deserves extra analysis within the LBS to figure out how suddenly in one month the amount of part time workers can go up by a whopping 8 % !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  25. jamessheridanComment by jamessheridan
    October 5, 2012 @ 5:32 pm

    So now part time work in a seasonal Halloween store is saving the economy???

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      October 5, 2012 @ 6:51 pm

      Not really, but if there are 600 k such workers hired during the September month, it would explain the numbers! LOL

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      October 6, 2012 @ 10:00 am

      Well thanks for your star, whoever you are! :)

      The economy is certainly not being saved by this sudden increase i part time workers.

      At best the majority of these part time jobs is now held by those that had decent full time jobs with much higher family incomes in the past.

      In other words, Families are suffering, have to take steps back.

      Yes, it is nice that at least they can have some income, so there might be some improvement.
      If you look however at the national debt (the portion added to it to finance this anemic recovery) you have to realize that for 5 trillion, you could have hired how many new people?

      Let’s do the math here for fun: 5 trillion at an income of 50,000 a year would be 100 million man/woman years!

      over 4 years, Obama could have hired 25 million people!
      That is more than double the total amount of unemployed Americans!

      Makes you think doesn’t it? So yeah, given all the money that has been pumped into the economy, his results have been PATHETIC at best!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





Fresh Ink Archives

  • October 2014
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • Reference Pages

  • About
  • Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer