Track that data. It is always like that.

 

 

Ask them if they're better off. See what kind of answer you get.

I have noticed that no one ever refutes/argues or replies to your employment numbers. Must be because you make too much sense.:sssh:

 

More like people trying to figure out how a dude from Ky can figure all this out but yet no one else in America can.

 

 

Translation....anybody can make numbers read what they want. Math is stupid.

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?[/QUOTE]

 

Sure, with the proper policies and leadership.

 

So Bush dropped the ball and then Obama couldn't pick it up properly?

Other odd statistics....

 

Average duration of unemployment in terms of weeks rose in September to 39.8 from 39.2 in August. So that is a negative.

Median rose from 18.0 to 18.5 between August and September.

 

September of 2011: 40.2 and 18.9 respectfully. So almost no change in these two telling statistics in a year. And the recent trendline is creeping up. These are not 'recovery' numbers.

 

Interesting info.

So Bush dropped the ball and then Obama couldn't pick it up properly?

 

That's a fair statement.

Edited October 6, 201213 yr by PurplePride92

More like people trying to figure out how a dude from Ky can figure all this out but yet no one else in America can.

 

 

Translation....anybody can make numbers read what they want. Math is stupid.

 

That's what I always tried to explain to my parents.

Other odd statistics....

 

Average duration of unemployment in terms of weeks rose in September to 39.8 from 39.2 in August. So that is a negative.

Median rose from 18.0 to 18.5 between August and September.

 

September of 2011: 40.2 and 18.9 respectfully. So almost no change in these two telling statistics in a year. And the recent trendline is creeping up. These are not 'recovery' numbers.

 

More like people trying to figure out how a dude from Ky can figure all this out but yet no one else in America can.

 

 

Translation....anybody can make numbers read what they want. Math is stupid.

 

 

The numbers come directly from BLS. I just show patterns and trends that are ignored or not picked up by the lamestream media.

 

The other thread simply shows that BLS has not never over estimated weekly unemployment claims in its initial count since I started tracking in March. If you are estimating and aiming for accuracy you should be above your target 50% of the time and below your target 50% of the time. BLS has underestimated 100% of the time. Underestimating provides positive, but flawed news reports and headlines. No one seems to care. We are all being lied to.

 

Tonight the radio said some 'conspiracy theorists' questioned today's number. Jack Walsh, former CEO of GE, is a conspiracy theorists?

 

Next thing you know he will doubt some goofy computer created pdf file released by the White House last April is a scan from a Hawaii state document.

Jack Walsh, former CEO of GE, is a conspiracy theorists?

 

 

His image took a hit today. Came off as kooky old man.

Without going back and re-reading this thread I'm a taken aback by some of the posts. Today simply said that it's getting somewhat better. Nothing more. We should all be applauding it as it means more of our brothers and sisters are earning an income. It means those business owners that have been holding onto their money and not hiring due to uncertainty are easing up just a bit.

 

The fact that one side might use it in a debate or campaign message and having that bother some is disappointing.

Other odd statistics....

 

Average duration of unemployment in terms of weeks rose in September to 39.8 from 39.2 in August. So that is a negative.

Median rose from 18.0 to 18.5 between August and September.

 

September of 2011: 40.2 and 18.9 respectfully. So almost no change in these two telling statistics in a year. And the recent trendline is creeping up. These are not 'recovery' numbers.

 

Interesting info.

 

How does the official rate take a dive like this and yet these two statistics go up?

 

 

Jack Walsh called it.

 

Rick Santelli called it. He said they would get it below 8%.

 

Santelli: 'I Told You They'd Get It Under 8%' - CNBC

 

 

I need to look some more. They seemed to stuff around 1 million people into 'work at home'.

BTW Santelli called a move below 8% in early September.

 

Rick Santelli Inspires Groans After Predicting 7.9% Unemployment By Election | Mediaite

How does the official rate take a dive like this and yet these two statistics go up?

 

 

 

Simple.

 

The UE rate only takes into account # of unemployed and number of people in the potential workforce.

 

Your stat simply measures how long those that fall into "unemployed" are in that state.

 

Ex: Workforce of 100.

# of unemployed = 10

Avg duration of those 10 is 40 weeks.

 

Now 1 of the 10 gets a gig. UE rate is impacted. Goes down assuming nothing else changes.

We do not know how the avg duration is impacted until we look at the person who got a job. Say this guy was laid off for 4 weeks and got job on the day after the previous calc. That means the avg of the remaining 9 is 44 weeks.

If you include the newly employed in the new calc and add in 4 more weeks for each of the 9 plus the 4 weeks for #10 you have a new avg of 40.4 ie slightly higher than it was last month before #10 got his job.

Simple.

 

The UE rate only takes into account # of unemployed and number of people in the potential workforce.

 

Your stat simply measures how long those that fall into "unemployed" are in that state.

 

Ex: Workforce of 100.

# of unemployed = 10

Avg duration of those 10 is 40 weeks.

 

Now 1 of the 10 gets a gig. UE rate is impacted. Goes down assuming nothing else changes.

We do not know how the avg duration is impacted until we look at the person who got a job. Say this guy was laid off for 4 weeks and got job on the day after the previous calc. That means the avg of the remaining 9 is 44 weeks.

If you include the newly employed in the new calc and add in 4 more weeks for each of the 9 plus the 4 weeks for #10 you have a new avg of 40.4 ie slightly higher than it was last month before #10 got his job.

 

Mathematically this is correct. But nothing supports that this is what happened. The weekly unemployment claims do not back up this scenario. Every other statistics got 'worse' in August.

 

Here is the 'work at home' I mentioned. Actually more 'part time'. On the radio they said work at home.

 

Reason For Today's Unemployment Rate Plunge: Part-Time Jobs For Economic Reasons Surge Most Since QE1 Announcement | ZeroHedge

Without going back and re-reading this thread I'm a taken aback by some of the posts. Today simply said that it's getting somewhat better. Nothing more. We should all be applauding it as it means more of our brothers and sisters are earning an income. It means those business owners that have been holding onto their money and not hiring due to uncertainty are easing up just a bit.

 

The fact that one side might use it in a debate or campaign message and having that bother some is disappointing.

 

We are no better off then we where 4 years ago. WAKE UP AMERICA!

Also saw today (not reported by the media) that using the 2007 the labor participation rate numbers (IE: # of potential workers--Does anyone really believe that there are less available workers today than 5 years ago??) vs. the numbers used to create today's reported rate (this may be an altitude adjusted rate??); that the actual unemployment rate is 11.3%, not including the "underemployed"?? Simply put, the % of Americans employed is still down drastically. Keep believing in hope & change, while we become Greece part II.