unemployment drops to 7.8%

[gwb72tii]

Hahaha you can't possibly expect any critical thinking from him.

like I said: dumb enough to believe in scientology; will believe anything as long as it reinforces his view of politics.

You sir are a troll
Get back under the bridge.
You never post any critical thinking of your own, you piggy back on others' posts.

[BraveUlysses]

Hahaha you can't possibly expect any critical thinking from him.

like I said: dumb enough to believe in scientology; will believe anything as long as it reinforces his view of politics.

[rwh11385]

And before you stock up on more Reynold's Wrap, maybe at least check out what someone even at the WSJ can think logically about, being owned by Rupert Murdoch or not: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/...reaming_stream

In September, the number of part-time workers who would like full-time jobs surged by 582,000. That represents about two-thirds of the increase in employment last month and is larger than the drop in the number of unemployed. That’s why the U-6 stayed at 14.7% in September.

So, while more people are working according to the household survey, and that is an undisputed positive, the quality of those jobs remains in question.

Instead of actually looking for reasoning or logic, even from your own side's media outlets... you just make wild claims and let everyone see your tinfoil hat glaring. Maybe you can go as a crazy kook for Halloween, although there are plenty of stores open already with all those seasonal part-time workers.


There's more to be said about the reaction of the report than the actual methodologies that go into it. I mean, unless people don't understand how the numbers are produced, what does or does not count... and then just making wild claims about the report anyway (only people who are receiving UI benefits count in the number, etc.). Still, educated people shouldn't get too caught up in the RWNJ media response and hence why even a NewsCorp publication sticks to the facts and reasons through it, because the mouth-breathers like joshh prefer Drudge over WSJ. The general populace loves the circus, some love conspiracy theories too, but that doesn't mean the entire world should cater to people who find it easier to make ignorant accusations instead of learning about something.

[rwh11385]

114,000 jobs were added last month. Now explain how that can possibly drop the unemployment rate by .3%.
It's mathematically impossible...

Where did you study math? What mathematical rule does it specifically violate?



And why not look at the other thread about unemployment? The U3 fell an entire point over 4 months, so wouldn't it make sense that some of those months had a .3% drop? (average would have been .25%...)

And what were the job numbers for those drops?
Dec 2010: .4% drop with 120K new jobs
Jan 2011: .3% drop with 110K new jobs

If you look at Table 11, you'll see that less people are unemployed because they didn't lose their old jobs.

You also seem to be missing in your math that benchmarking just done had the BLS add 386,000 jobs that weren't there previously. (ones captured by ADP's report based on paycheck processing but the BLS model didn't reflect until using IRS data to benchmark) The revisions for prior two months also added 86,000 jobs.


Orange on top is ADP's job numbers and blue BLS below it. [Sorry, didn't know ADP's chart image was only temporary]

Now, it is expected that "truthers" like you with your tinfoil hats would make wild accusations on no basis other than your ignorance, but would you try to claim that multiple entities are all plotting together, including Gallup and ADP as well?




edit: Vdubin, might want to check to see how well your sources can read data. (Or don't misleading quote them out of context...)

Maybe more shocking, total employment, as measured by the Household Survey, rose by 873,000 in September to 142,974,000, the biggest one month jump since June 1983.

Series Id: LNS12000000
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed

Jan 2003: 991,000 added (due to population controls)
Jan 2000: 2,036,000 added (due to population controls)
Jan 1990: 1,251,000 added

But who cares about accurate reporting?? Crazy conspiracy tinfoil hat people don't care about facts.

[Morrison]

If you have a bachelor's degree or higher and are over age 25, the unemployment rate has pretty much held steady at 4.1%. Asians in general have a 4.8% unemployment rate regardless of education.

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

Additionally, you can go into the healthcare or travel and warehousing industries for even greater odds.

Lots of companies are looking to hire - but can't find qualified candidates. If you don't have skills, we can't help you.

Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[2761377]

er, newsflash-

there are nefarious forces at work to guarantee the Messiahs' re-election.

just in case you were naive enough to actually believe in the system.

the goal is total enslavement of the populace.

look around and you'll see the brainwashing is almost complete. we who think are demonized by the so-called 'liberals'

[markseven]

Chicago at its finest! Nice way to try to bounce back after a devastating debate just a few days before!


Maybe more shocking, total employment, as measured by the Household Survey, rose by 873,000 in September to 142,974,000, the biggest one month jump since June 1983.

As such, total employment now stands at the highest level it's been since December 2008 before Obama was inaugurated.
But even more mysterious is the divergence in the two surveys done by the Labor Department.


The Household Survey showed a gain of 873,000 people employed in September - resulting in the surprise drop in the unemployment rate - while the Establishment Survey only showed a rise of 114,000.




Hmmm.

This could be happening outside Aerospace, too:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/white-house-discourages-layoff-warnings-204257446--election.html

[Thizzelle]

all i see are people getting fired or leaving at my work place. Then expecting the same results with less.

[joshh]

math>you

Really and what would GDP growth have to be for the unemployment rate to drop that much that fast? And for just a single month?......Herbie...wake the fuck up.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I also was going to post that same number info vdub posted. You'd think someone from Chicago wouldn't be that good at being fishy, but I guess it can be attributed to time near the ocean in Hawaii and Indonesia.

[herbivor]

114,000 jobs were added last month. Now explain how that can possibly drop the unemployment rate by .3%.
It's mathematically impossible...

math>you

[cale]

If we question it hard enough, that'll make it that much more scandalous or questionable!

[joshh]

It's magic I tell you!

[Vedubin01]

Chicago at its finest! Nice way to try to bounce back after a devastating debate just a few days before!


Maybe more shocking, total employment, as measured by the Household Survey, rose by 873,000 in September to 142,974,000, the biggest one month jump since June 1983.

As such, total employment now stands at the highest level it's been since December 2008 before Obama was inaugurated.
But even more mysterious is the divergence in the two surveys done by the Labor Department.


The Household Survey showed a gain of 873,000 people employed in September - resulting in the surprise drop in the unemployment rate - while the Establishment Survey only showed a rise of 114,000.




Hmmm.

[joshh]

There are certain people that are dropped every month which makes the ratio different.

Like by 850,000...don't think so...