So the 47% is actually too low? Should it be the 58% or the 63%? Shoot, looks like if Obama wants to win he needs to find less jobs and put more people on welfare and unemployment to me since people aren't looking for jobs any more.

 

Never mind. Enjoyed the peace and quiet not having the computer this week.

Why find a job when the government will just take care of you. Or should I say the 68% that are actually working and paying into taxes are taking care of you.

 

Good question. I'm putting in my 2 weeks notice right now.

Free phones, whats next, free Qurans, burkas, and prayer rugs. hahaha just kidding.

According to my conservative friends on Facebook it is really over 11% because they aren't including the numbers of those who have 'given up' looking for jobs.

 

There are 6 different UE measures. The only UE over 10% is UE6 which includes U1 through U5.

 

It's not really an unemployment measure though since it includes people already working that are included in UE5.

 

These measures can be difficult to follow. They are for me.

People are missing a lot of what the report says. First, participation went up, not down, so that doesn't explain the drop in the UE rate. For whatever reason, the government report of new jobs seems to lag the ADP payroll report. When the recession was starting, the ADP numbers were worse than the government numbers. For the past few months the ADP numbers have been better than the government reports. The government reports for the summer are being revised up very significantly. That is the real story. Things have been better in the last few months that the government has reported. The government numbers are starting to catch up. That is the real reason for the big drop in the UE rate for September.

An interesting fact: Only one president, Ronald Reagan, has been re-elected since World War II with unemployment above 6 percent. On Election Day 1984, the rate was at 7.2 percent. I'm curious to see how things turn out.

 

 

I saw a stat that I can't recall about unemployment as of April or May of election year needing to be at a certain number. The rate this spring was well above the number Obama needed to feel good about re-election. Regardless of what unemployment number you use, it isn't good so that one should put Obama on his heels. There are many twists and turns left in this campaign and I think it is going down to the wire.

 

One other comment on the economy, I think the best snippet Romney used and he should keep pounding this one is the number of people on food stamps. I believe he said the number has grown from 32 million to 47 million under Obama. That is an eye opening number and one that should have impact about the state of our economy.

Last month 148,000 new jobs and the unemployment rate dropped from 8.2 to 8.1. This month only 114,000 found jobs and the unemployment rate drops from 8.1 to 7.8.

 

This tells you that fewer are looking for jobs. Only 68% of the country that is able to work is actually working. That is pathetic.

 

The confusion stems from the fact that the BLS underestimated the number of jobs added. ADP has a monthly estimate and their numbers were higher than the BLS initially reported. BLS has revised those numbers so the actual job increase numbers are:

 

July: 181k

Aug: 142k

 

The reports are that more people are in the market than previously.

Former GE CEO Jack Welch has accused the White House of manipulating the numbers. I don't think Jack understands how it works.

 

 

Jack Welch charges White House manipulated unemployment numbers - latimes.com

 

I think Jack knows exactly how politics works, which is why he said what he did. Apparently others have concerns as well:

 

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."

 

Liberal economist Dean Baker, with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, called the September rate drop "almost certainly a statistical fluke."

 

"It is common to have large monthly changes in the employment numbers that are not consistent with other economic data. For example, employment reportedly rose by 649,000 in November of 2007, the month before the recession began," he said in a statement. "Still, this month's numbers almost certainly indicate that the unemployment rate is moving downward, even if the speed is considerably slower than the latest data indicate."

An interesting fact: Only one president, Ronald Reagan, has been re-elected since World War II with unemployment above 6 percent. On Election Day 1984, the rate was at 7.2 percent. I'm curious to see how things turn out.

 

I've always heard the 8% used, which is why it's interesting it dropped under that.

This is such a great day:irked:. The unemployment numbers are now BACK (down) to what they were when Obama took office. Forty four months to get unemployment to where it was when he took office is NOT economic recovery.

 

So agian, are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?

This is such a great day:irked:. The unemployment numbers are now BACK (down) to what they were when Obama took office. Forty four months to get unemployment to where it was when he took office is NOT economic recovery.

 

So agian, are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?

 

Your posed question is not being debated in this thread. It's a positive movement. Nothing more.

An interesting fact: Only one president, Ronald Reagan, has been re-elected since World War II with unemployment above 6 percent. On Election Day 1984, the rate was at 7.2 percent. I'm curious to see how things turn out.

 

I've always heard the 8% used, which is why it's interesting it dropped under that.

 

Was the recession under Reagan comparable to the recession under Bush/Obama?

I think Jack knows exactly how politics works, which is why he said what he did. Apparently others have concerns as well:

 

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."

 

Liberal economist Dean Baker, with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, called the September rate drop "almost certainly a statistical fluke."

 

"It is common to have large monthly changes in the employment numbers that are not consistent with other economic data. For example, employment reportedly rose by 649,000 in November of 2007, the month before the recession began," he said in a statement. "Still, this month's numbers almost certainly indicate that the unemployment rate is moving downward, even if the speed is considerably slower than the latest data indicate."

 

 

 

So let's run with the hypothesis that the WH somehow manipulated data.

 

Why wait so long to have any positive numbers? Why say your numbers were LESS than what ADP said they were? If they're trying to get votes they'd say they were HIGHER than what ADP said and manipulate it to the point of , say, 6.9%.

 

Doesn't make sense. The WH doesn't do the survey. It's like saying the WH has sway over the CBO. I don't buy it.

Was the recession under Reagan comparable to the recession under Bush/Obama?

 

I can't cite actual statistics but it was really bad.

This is such a great day:irked:. The unemployment numbers are now BACK (down) to what they were when Obama took office. Forty four months to get unemployment to where it was when he took office is NOT economic recovery.

 

So agian, are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?

 

Yes, very much so. So is the country.