Here's an article explaining the monthly process BLS goes through to get the report out.

 

 

‘Jobs Day’: Monthly release of employment data an economic, political obsession - The Washington Post

Yes, very much so. So is the country.

 

Really? Median income down 4,000 dollars.

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.

 

It makes sense if you think you have it pretty much wrapped up until your candidate loses a debate you're figuring he'd win.

 

I don't think the WH manipulated the numbers but anytime Chicago is involved in politics and something doesn't fit there's going to be whispers. Lots of things happen in campaigns outside the candidate's control.

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

 

Seems like the numbers were as bad or worse, particularly inflation, interest rates and unemployment. It was much shorter, maybe 2 years or so.

Yes, very much so. So is the country.

 

Really? Better let them know as only a bit more than a third feel it's headed in the right direction.

It makes sense if you think you have it pretty much wrapped up until your candidate loses a debate you're figuring he'd win.

 

I don't think the WH manipulated the numbers but anytime Chicago is involved in politics and something doesn't fit there's going to be whispers. Lots of things happen in campaigns outside the candidate's control.

 

 

So in order for this conspiracy to ring anywhere near true we have to believe that people lied when surveyed.

Seems like the numbers were as bad or worse, particularly inflation, interest rates and unemployment. It was much shorter, maybe 2 years or so.

 

My aging memory says inflation was really, really bad.

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

 

I post some details about that recession in another thread. As soon as I did the thread died. To add to a previous post, the S&L Industry became insolvent, Latin America was defaulting on loans and put banks under pressure. It was very pretty bad, some would say just as bad as 2008 and in some ways worse.

Really? Better let them know as only a bit more than a third feel it's headed in the right direction.

 

But that's the rub. If Romney takes over there is still going to be a third or so that feel the country is headed in the right direction. Regardless of the leader the dissension and end results will be similar. If Obama or Romney could fix it that fast it would already be fixed. Wouldn't it?

I post some details about that recession in another thread. As soon as I did the thread died. To add to a previous post, the S&L Industry became insolvent, Latin America was defaulting on loans and put banks under pressure. It was very pretty bad, some would say just as bad as 2008 and in some ways worse.

 

Here's where my economic ignorance comes in to play. Why wouldn't we repeat what we did to fix it then? Are those methods of fixing it in the 80's not applicable to our current situation?

Obama just gave a speech talking about making things fair for everyone. Is it fair to take money from those working to earn it?

Obama just gave a speech talking about making things fair for everyone. Is it fair to take money from those working to earn it?

 

Age old question: how do you define "fair?"

Here's where my economic ignorance comes in to play. Why wouldn't we repeat what we did to fix it then? Are those methods of fixing it in the 80's not applicable to our current situation?

 

That's a great question. Let me add that unemployment peaked at 10.8%, energy prices spiked, real household income was lower in 1983 than in 1969. Pension funds were in trouble, and the S&P adjusted for inflation was back to same price as it was in the early 50's.

 

In the 80's policy-makers took a different course than the ones are today. They trimmed non-military spending, cut marginal tax rates, held minimum wage, de-regulated energy markets, and created no new entitlements. Today we have pretty much done the opposite. So what happened in 1983-84? The GDP grew 6.6% annually and the jobless rate fell 3.5% in 21 months. At the time you would have thought that we learned our lesson from the 70's when we also had way too much government but apparently we didn't.

 

So to answer you question, I have no idea. The only answer I can logically come up with is that improving the economy today. I realize that sounds stupid but why else would you do the exact opposite of what worked in the past?

 

For the record in the 70's the government grew under Nixon, Ford, and Carter. In the 80's the economy grew under Reagan but he had support from Democrates. In the 2000's the government grew massively under Bush and continues to grow under Obama. My point is this isn't a republican or democrat problem. Both parties were instrumental in all cases good or bad.

Obama just gave a speech talking about making things fair for everyone. Is it fair to take money from those working to earn it?

 

Under no definition is it fair.

Age old question: how do you define "fair?"

And a good question at that. I've never seen a good answer for it.