unemployment drops to 7.8%

[joshh]

You are aware that that sample is scaled to indicate the trend for the overall population, right? Sometimes it's hard to tell with someone as moronic as you. Do you think that the government ought to spend more every month for a larger sample pool, or what??


You know, besides the ISM reports... or improvement in the housing market. But hey, you're the guy who has been battling any consideration that anything has gotten better in the last 4 years because you are a close-minded dimwit whose hatred blinds him from reading data objectively.

No you fucking moron, a more accurate sample.

Oh there you go again having to lie about what I've said in the past and even today to fit in with your view of what it is you'd love for me to have said. I said and have said the economy has been very very slow to move forward. Not that it is falling or dying. Keep the twist rocking.
The economy is the same as last year when we were arguing...slow as fuck. But yet here we are again and here I am seeing the same slow ass economy as I expected to see. As I said time and time again.

[rwh11385]

in defense of the govt, the BLS is not at fault. they gather the data. its the way the data is used and defined, like saying someone who is out of work and lands a babysitting job for one hour is now somehow employed. it doesn't make sense.

that's a first coming from you.

Maybe if tinfoil nutjobs like joshh started focusing on better methods of tracking employment metrics, instead of simply calling foul based on ignorance, the BLS might adopt a tracking of payroll-to-population as the primary indicator. But then someone would whine about changing the methodology even if it was for the better.

anyone who works for one hour can be classified as part time, the largest "contributor" to the drop, plus the denominator is shrinking which makes it far easier to have the % drop.
i'd argue, as others have, that to classify someone who hasn't looked for a job in 4 weeks as no longer unemployed is completely wrong

How would you do it, thinks-he-is-all-knowing mutual-fund-pusher?

I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain is readily able to see that the bulk of employment came from part-time workers and U-6 didn't change, so all the idiots who got into a rage like the numbers are too good to be true are ridiculous. It can't be considered that simply.

And you might want to check the numbers again... civilian labor force as well as participation rate ticked up in the Sept job report.

If they give up, they've still captured, although not in U-3. I think they try to gather enough information and present it in a way that if someone cares to put in the effort to understand it, it is easily feasible. If someone has the reading comprehension of a child or too lazy to read anything themselves, it can seem wrong. And some people leave the workforce to take care of kids and that ought to be tracked and categorized differently (still not looking for work, but different reasons)... and not against the metrics. But the real confusion which is understandable is the retiree and school factors that they need to track and present better. The seasonality may help with summer vs. school year but there's a lot that needs to be taken into consideration that many people don't pick up on, unless they find the reports that explain long-term demographic trends. And then there are people who want to be close-minded and call bullshit even if it is a very apparent trend that kids are in school for longer (masters) and work less while in school these days. There's also some people working later into retirement age, but the gigantic wave of baby boomers who will stop work will make the participation rate plummet further and not be as clear as possible. It's not like the population is some static mass that doesn't change or age - and it can better communicate demographics than "in labor force" or "not". There are research studies into it, but like I mentioned - not everyone cares to be informed about them.

Companies report a whopping jobs of 114,000 for Sept. Yet the Obama administration finds 870,000 jobs from a 60,000 numbered survey of homes.

And how many jobs were added after the benchmark and also the revised July and August numbers? Or can you not read anything that's not a headline?

You are aware that that sample is scaled to indicate the trend for the overall population, right? Sometimes it's hard to tell with someone as moronic as you. Do you think that the government ought to spend more every month for a larger sample pool, or what??

No indicator there of jobs or much growth in the economy by any stretch of the imagination.

You know, besides the ISM reports... or improvement in the housing market. But hey, you're the guy who has been battling any consideration that anything has gotten better in the last 4 years because you are a close-minded dimwit whose hatred blinds him from reading data objectively.

[gwb72tii]

in defense of the govt, the BLS is not at fault. they gather the data. its the way the data is used and defined, like saying someone who is out of work and lands a babysitting job for one hour is now somehow employed. it doesn't make sense.

[joshh]

anyone who works for one hour can be classified as part time, the largest "contributor" to the drop, plus the denominator is shrinking which makes it far easier to have the % drop.
i'd argue, as others have, that to classify someone who hasn't looked for a job in 4 weeks as no longer unemployed is completely wrong

That's the problem with leaving a survey that can easily be manipulated but government at the hands of government. Specially at a time when there's an election. It can not be verified.
"I mowed my neighbors lawn yesterday."...yep he's employed!

[gwb72tii]

anyone who works for one hour can be classified as part time, the largest "contributor" to the drop, plus the denominator is shrinking which makes it far easier to have the % drop.
i'd argue, as others have, that to classify someone who hasn't looked for a job in 4 weeks as no longer unemployed is completely wrong

[joshh]

Ah the cherry picker is here.
I should have known it would have been RWH would jump in this thread because he needs to keep defending why the economy is still dragging it's ass. After he started the "Unemployment has dropped one full percentage point" BS thread. And how he went on about how the recovery was here yet we're still a full year after that and in a quagmire of economic shit.

Companies report a whopping jobs of 114,000 for Sept. Yet the Obama administration finds 870,000 jobs from a 60,000 numbered survey of homes. And the survey is very broadly done so it's quite convenient that this comes out after Obama gets his ass handed to him right after the debate. And the easiest part of the statistics to add in data that no one can verify might I add.

In 1983 there were economic signs to justify why there was a spike in employment unlike what we've just seen at the hands of the Obama administration.



GDP is dying as of late (actually pretty much this whole year). No indicator there of jobs or much growth in the economy by any stretch of the imagination. Let alone 873,000 jobs out of no where.

If you believe what obama himself is saying in that he has created 4.5 million jobs then he is himself also admitting he isn't even close to creating enough jobs to put those people who lost them back to work from the recession. Let alone those who are entering the job market.

So at some point you have to use some basic logic and ask yourself, if 4.5 million Americans are back to work over the past four years and twice as many as that lost work over that same period of time. And they have to create 125,000 a month just to keep up with those *entering the job market* (that's approximately 6,000,000 alone). How can the unemployment rate possibly be 7.8%?

The answer is it can't be. It's another false statistic in the numbers game to make the Pres look like he's being productive.

Here's the other part of the answer.

[rwh11385]

Well, based on the release, MI and MS had the greatest decreases, but without comments. I could easily see MI being behind the ball. And more info sez that a state failed to finalize its quarter numbers which may have dropped their # of claims if they messed up the end of the monf.

Still, -2,639 for MI or -3,393 for MS doesn't greatly impact the overall change. Although it's not great to have people not reporting completely in a timely fashion. But I also wouldn't guess that they would specifically call out data points if they weren't solid without mentioning that fact. I also don't get why they would have a state with a big drop on incomplete data not be mentioned either...

[Farbin Kaiber]

I bet its IL.

[rwh11385]

It's strange that missing quarterly data would mean lack of weekly data, but hopefully more information will help explain it. Lacking clarity from DOL is not good - should have had an *, but the response doesn't make sense either. It's like people commenting didn't care to see that NY and CA reported and are mentioned in the news release specifically. (and showed increases in initial claims, not a drop)

The next week sadly gives the conspiracy theorists time to dream up a million crazy ideas about how a state's inability to report finalized quarter numbers is a strategy for Obama to skew the system.

[Vedubin01]

Found this...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-11/data-massaging-continues-initial-claims-tumble-339k-lowest-2008-far-below-lowest-exp

Data Massaging Continues: Initial Claims Tumble To 339K Lowest Since 2008, Far Below Lowest Expectation


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/11/2012 08:42 -0400

• BLS
• Bureau of Labor Statistics
• New Normal
• Steve Liesman
• Trade Deficit
• Unemployment

This is just getting stupid. After expectations of a rebound in initial claims from 367K last week (naturally revised higher to 369K), to 370K (with the lowest of all sellside expectations at 355K), the past week mysteriously, yet so very unsurprisingly in the aftermath of the fudged BLS unemployment number, saw claims tumble to a number that is so ridiculous not even CNBC's Steve Liesman bothered defending it, or 339K. Ironically, not even the Labor Department is defending it: it said that "one large state didn't report some quarterly figures." Great, but what was reported was a headline grabbing number that is just stunning for reelection purposes. This was the lowest number since 2008. The only point to have this print? For 2-3 bulletin talking points at the Vice Presidential debate tonight. Everything else is now noise.
It is also sad that the US "economy" has devolved to such trivial data fudging on a week by week basis, which makes even the Chinese Department of Truth appear amateurish by comparison. Needless to say, Not Seasonally Adjusted initial claims jumped by 26K to 327K in the past week but who's counting. Finally, what is the reason for ongoing QEternity if the employment situation is now back to normal. Finally, in completely ignored news, because who needs global trade when you have toner cartridge, and generally ink, the US trade deficit in August rose by 4.1% to $44.2 billion, on expectations of a deterioration to $44.0 billion. Then again nobody talks about the US trade deficit during presidential debates so all good here.
Jobless Claims beat by the most since May 2009 and is the lowest since Jan 2008 - the new normal...


with the biggest 3-week drop since Jan 2006..


and the idiocy of relentless revisiosn continues...


as the six-sigma beat plays out...

[rwh11385]

[nando]

Jobless claims fell to their lowest in four and a half years - 339,000. the 4 week moving average fell to 364,000.

er, I mean, it's a big evil Obama conspiracy! :p

[Morrison]

So it would appear it does rub off on the rest of us then.

[Ryan Stewart]

So if you are terribly worried about unemployment, perhaps get a bachelor's or try to be more Asian.

I think there might be something to this. I spent a lot of time IN Asians and Ive never gone more than two weeks without employment since high school.

[rwh11385]

this was in the news. (JUST POSTING)

Imagine a country where challenging the ruling authorities—questioning, say, a piece of data released by central headquarters—would result in mobs of administration sympathizers claiming you should feel "embarrassed" and labeling you a fool, or worse.



Soviet Russia perhaps? Communist China? Nope, that would be the United States right now, when a person (like me, for instance) suggests that a certain government datum (like the September unemployment rate of 7.8%) doesn't make sense.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

Piece in summary: Wah wah I forgot to put on a flame suit when I made serious accusations about the integrity of an agency with zero proof.


It wasn't just Obama supporters who pointed out how ridiculous he was being, and rightfully so. Just because he doesn't understand something doesn't give him carte blanche to make claims of foul play, which he started talking about EVEN BEFORE THE REPORT WAS RELEASED!

He has not been silenced by some overpowerful government, he chose to end his contract with Reuters and Fortune himself and still is publishing his senility with the WSJ obviously. As much as he cannot be made to shut up when he is being a fool, he cannot force everyone else to not point how how empty his baseless claims are. He is an idiot to expect first amendment rights yet no one else can provide their opinion about his.

But I found this familiar:

Matthews got right to the point: “What evidence do you have that they got to the BLS?”

“I have no evidence to prove that, I just raised the question,” Welch insisted in what was by day’s end to become a mantra to him.

Matthews, to his credit, stuck to his guns: “No, you didn’t raise the question…You were asserting … did you talk to any economists?”

Since Welch clearly did not have access to hard data from economists, he fell back on what he knew had to be true: “Chris, I know that these numbers are gathered by a series of wild assumptions…but it seems coincidental that one month before the election they would end up at 7.8.”

Matthews pointed out to Welch that what people cared about was his analysis, not his attitude toward Obama. He pointed out that Welch “asserted corruption.”

There is no proof I'm right, but with the eon decelerating to 1.25% GDP, somehow we magically added 800k jobs.
And the household survey jumps the most in 29 years, in this economy which is essentially stalled out. Come on. Magically after having his ass handed to him by Romney in the debate I unfortunately missed.
I call bulshit.

“I don’t know what the right number is, but I will tell you these numbers don’t smell right when you think about where the economy is right now,” he told Bolling on Fox’s Your World.

When asked what he thinks actually happened, Welch said, “I honestly don’t know. Maybe we got the wrong measurement,” adding that many economists had predicted a higher unemployment figure.

“I tweeted last night predicting they would come in at 7.9 percent so they could be below 8 percent. The number is made up of a whole mess of assumptions,” he continued. “It just begs the question: I think there ought to be a good discussion of how this number is calculated. That is all.”

But he didn't just question for a good discussion of the number, he directly accused the administration of cooking the books somehow.

If you really want to know another reason why the month-to-month drop was so great, take into account what made August worse than usual:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57526845/on-jobs-numbers-bls-vows-theres-no-conspiracy/

Haugen explained that one factor that likely led to the 0.3 percentage point drop in this month's unemployment is the fact that people in the 20-24 age group (including college students and people who are often working temporary summer jobs) left the job market this summer earlier than expected.

"In August you had an unusually large decline in employment" among that demographic, he said. Because the BLS does seasonal adjustments for its data, it was primed for a big decline in September, when young people have traditionally left the work force. "What happened was there was a big decline in August and not a decline in September. Because there was no decline [when it was expected] there's a big increase after seasonal adjustment."

Gallup said before the job report was published:

"Still, ADP did show a slightly higher-than-consensus private-sector growth number Wednesday. Jobless claims fell substantially during the BLS reference week. Regardless, it is still possible that the government’s unadjusted decline in the unemployment rate will be larger than Gallup's, that its seasonal adjustment will be smaller for September, and/or that the government will show another decline in the size of the workforce. As a result, a 7.9% unemployment rate for September remains possible, if unlikely."

It's not like U-6 changed, or a huge increase in full-time work. The primary driver was a lot of part-time employment and any half-wit wouldn't try to simply look at the headline number anyway. It is a much of laymen with no real clue about the BLS report trying to call foulplay, because of what? .1% lower than Gallup said was possible but unlikely? (Even though the BLS and Gallup numbers have been along the same path - even if not tracking perfectly each month) It's like Fusion calling bullshit on Gallup's poll of political parties and "young earthers" because of his utter ignorance of standard polling sample size practices.




There's no crazy discrepancies between the two surveys here - .3 is much less than .9 peak and on par with other months.

And it is not like their methods are secret or even use "wild assumptions", they are clearly posted and presented for all to see:
http://www.bls.gov/bls/empsitquickguide.htm

The coefficient of variation (CV) is 1.9 percent on national monthly estimates of employment level from the CPS, which translates into a change of 0.2 percentage point in the unemployment rate being significant at the 90-percent confidence level. Because the CPS has a much smaller sample than the CES, its margin of error on the measurement of month-to-month employment change is much larger. For a monthly change in CPS employment to be significant, it must be about plus or minus 436,000.

For those laymen who don't know about polling and statistics, it cannot be taken for certain at a 91% confidence interval that the population unemployment rate wasn't 8%. As much as Welch alleges that they somehow are shoveling bullshit, they are very specific about their methods and limitations of the surveys. It's ignorance of the people who question the BLS without being familiar with it that is the problem. Would he be making these claims if it was 8%?
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.pdf
And even public reports on divergences between the two surveys: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/02/art2full.pdf

It's like all the people here making false claims about the unemployment numbers based on being uniformed (not understanding it does not simply based on people receiving UI benefits), or saying that Obama changed the methodology, or gwb's repeated accusations of conspiracy, even while ignoring that private independent numbers are in line with the BLS data. We cannot let idiots in the media boil down the country to the least common denominator either.



Just like everyone who has passed high school science understand magnets, anyone with the most basic care to be informed about BLS know about the things that Welch and Rush seem to be questioning, or the mainstream pundits have been playing to over the last couple years. You can fool someone who is clueless on something, but don't get traction with this shit with the informed crowd. It's like the stupid crap about liberals crying for higher minimum wage when people informed know that it hurts those it seeks to help. The entire media industry has been trying to cater to a dumber population who will try to learn less on their own and take the misinformation and out of context data spewing towards them as gospel.

I used to respect Welch, but he is an idiot and only digging himself deeper. He quit two writing jobs and probably will lose business in his speaking / seminar gig because of this too. He had nothing but a feeling of things being "too much for coincidence" like gwb, but talking about of his ass won't do anything for him. Especially not when whining about people using their right of free speech to criticize his opinion and actions.