unemployment drops to 7.8%

[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.

[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]

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.

What is your grand idea of a "more accurate sample"? REALLY looking forward to your genius in action here.

So are you saying that the economy has improved in the last 4 years?

The home market is in a shit hole, why? Because people don't have money. There are a lot of people who think Americans are saving and "just not spending their money" HELLO McFLY THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY TO PUT DOWN ON A HOME! Let that sink in for a few minutes. They don't have money.

That was you in April 2011.

And yet, what happened:

That graph sucks and only proves what I'm talking about. Sweet we have a few months of "recovery" and a drop at the end.
It isn't over till more indicators show themselves as gain.

You had the pre-conclusion that it was going to crumble down.

And apparently decided to re-define words:

I stopped arguing with the guy when he couldn't even confront the fact that all of last year the economy grew at a rate of 1.7% being too slow to make it a growing economy.

Because you didn't want to acknowledge growth as growth?

For as obsessed are you were to pointed out when the ISM manufacturing index hit 49.7, you seem to have ignored that it is expanding by much more than it was ever contracting and the non-manufacturing index was larger than expected, and people thought it was going to slow.

Just "cherry picking" what you care to focus on, eh?


Anyway, what was the purpose of this thread exactly?

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

Point out your lack of knowledge about the BLS two surveys and that you failed to realize that the payroll information and household data were separate, and that they sometimes diverge and there is numerous studies about this? Sounds pretty much like a thread to point out your lack of understanding... no one on this forum needs the help to see that.

The two aren't mathematically related. But yet you declare for certain that it is impossible.

[Kershaw]

your patience to post and research past posts truly astounds me. what's your reddit name?

[Fusion]

5 posts a day, every day, for 9 years
Consider the unemployment rate important? How bout looking at the get-a-life rate?

[rwh11385]

5 posts a day, every day, for 9 years
Consider the unemployment rate important? How bout looking at the get-a-life rate?

Retard math.

Lol. I know math is not your strong suit. [Nor logic] You're assuming a 9 year average as current rate... I posted a lot more in the first 5 years. Although, once every 4 years there are people making ridiculous claims that aren't based in logic or facts and plenty of opportunity to debate.

But more math... If I didn't make a single post for two years... I'd still be at over 4 posts per day. That's 120 posts a month. Did that mean I made 120 posts a month over the course of the two years?

Go have fun with your stickers bro.

[nando]

Cant make a real argument so go to an ad hominem attack. Nice.

[Fusion]

I'm not making any arguments in this dicussion, just pointing out a fun fact.

Retard math.

Also known as a forum statistic.

[rwh11385]

I'm not making any arguments in this dicussion, just a fun fact.



Also known as a forum statistic.

No, I'm talking about your retarded ass assuming that 5 posts a day on average means I posted 5 times every day. You're an idiot.

If I drive 400 miles in 10 hours, does that mean I must be driving 40 mph every hour? Basic math skills dude.

your patience to post and research past posts truly astounds me. what's your reddit name?

Research skills have developed over the years and end up being useful for other things than just forum arguments. But I'm not on reddit, or post any significant amount on any other forums.

Cant make a real argument so go to an ad hominem attack. Nice.

Watch out, you have even more posts than me, so therefore Fusion is judging your life as well.

[Fusion]

No, your retarded ass assuming that 5 posts a day on average means I posted 5 times every day. You're an idiot.

If I drive 400 miles in 10 hours, does that mean I must be driving 40 mph every hour? Basic math dude.

Yes, your average speed is 40mph.
Are you seriously getting all butt-hurt over a number? No wonder you avoid real life conversation and rather spend more time on a car forum arguing numbers. I couldn't stand being around a hissy egomanic like you for ten minutes.

Cant make a real argument so go to an ad hominem attack. Nice.

Retard math.
Go have fun with your stickers bro.

your retarded ass

You're an idiot.

[rwh11385]

Yes, your average speed is 40mph.
Are you seriously getting all butt-hurt over a number? No wonder you avoid real life conversation and rather spend more time on a car forum arguing numbers. I couldn't stand being around a hissy egomanic like you for ten minutes.

No. Can you not read English or are just that bad at math?

If I drive 400 miles in 10 hours, does that mean I must be driving 40 mph every hour? Basic math dude.

I can take a lunch break for two hours and travel no distance during that time. I can drive 50 mph in the other 8 hours to have my average speed be 40 mph but there is nothing that necessitates that I am going 40 mph during every hour.

Ha at you trying to judge my life or ability to converse or socialize based on my criticism of your completely lack of math understanding.

[Fusion]

Your average speed is still 40 miles per hour.

[rwh11385]

Your average speed is still 40 miles per hour.

Wow... I'm flabbergasted how you are so stupid and still not getting this.

If I drive 400 miles in 10 hours, does that mean I must be driving 40 mph every hour?

1 - 50 mph
2 - 50 mph
3 - 50 mph
4 - 50 mph
5 - stationary
6 - stationary
7 - 50 mph
8 - 50 mph
9 - 50 mph
10 - 50 mph

Distance covered = 400 miles
Average speed = 40 mph

Did not go 40 mph in hour 5 or 6. (nor traveled at all in those two hours)

At least this points out how your arguments are so horrible in P&R threads, you have the critical thinking ability of a toddler.

[Fusion]

You're still only going 40mph, which would be too slow for you to post so many replies.

[joshh]

What is your grand idea of a "more accurate sample"? REALLY looking forward to your genius in action here.

So are you saying that the economy has improved in the last 4 years?


That was you in April 2011.

And yet, what happened:



You had the pre-conclusion that it was going to crumble down.

And apparently decided to re-define words:

Because you didn't want to acknowledge growth as growth?

For as obsessed are you were to pointed out when the ISM manufacturing index hit 49.7, you seem to have ignored that it is expanding by much more than it was ever contracting and the non-manufacturing index was larger than expected, and people thought it was going to slow.

Just "cherry picking" what you care to focus on, eh?


Anyway, what was the purpose of this thread exactly?


Point out your lack of knowledge about the BLS two surveys and that you failed to realize that the payroll information and household data were separate, and that they sometimes diverge and there is numerous studies about this? Sounds pretty much like a thread to point out your lack of understanding... no one on this forum needs the help to see that.

The two aren't mathematically related. But yet you declare for certain that it is impossible.

It doesn't matter. The point is it's not fucking accurate. Whether I personally have the solution or jot is not the point.

Oh that's precious.
So you want to argue semantics that I didn't give a 1.4 GDP growth a "growth". When in fact 2.5 is what it takes just for our economy to make real growth. So in fact you're arguing my point for me. Much appreciated!

Yeah and interest rates are at an all time low. But banks still aren't loaning unless you have cash on hand. And now the Fed is printing cash. That should really help things out.

Yes keep your eyes covered. 4.5 million Americans being put back to work should definitely pull the unemployment rate down to 7.8%. The unemployment stats are false.