Good news! Jobs report: 114K jobs added, jobless rate 7.8%. But the bad news is 342K more people left the work force. “Some 582,000 Americans took part- time positions because of slack business conditions or those jobs were the only work they could find.” The U-6 rate is still at 14.7%, and it hasn’t been below 14% in years….
This post was last modified on April 12, 2021
View Comments (14)
As predicted months ago, the fix was in...
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/05/Suspicion-Falls-on-Labor-Secretary-Solis-as-Jobs-Numbers-Questioned
FTA:the increase came entirely from revisions to public sector payrolls by cash-strapped federal and state governments.
Please don't refer to these people as 'unemployed' or 'underemployed', or 'despairing of any chance of work'. They are simply more "bumps in the road" to the new ObamaNation. That is all.
Ministry of ObamaHappyFunUnicornWordsForABetterTomorrowWithoutAnyDissentOrIndependentThought.
Go ahead, go to Ohio and tell them there is not more jobs problem. Tell the 50% of college grads that employment is back on track. See how far that gets you.
They didn't even have the decency to make it 7.9%, instead they had to go with 7.8% to match the number when he got in.
Low growth, the EU constantly on the edge, no one knows what will happen with taxes next year- sure people are going to add to their payrolls...
Well it's obvious the president needs some ammunition for the next debate, and here it is. It's like magic how this stuff happens.
See my comment in previous thread regarding exhausted vocabulary.
On Fox News this morning someone said that most of the new jobs for the month were government jobs - there's a rotten smell somewhere with these
figures. Gee, I wonder who would cook these figures. Nah, it wouldn't be the
White House.
It's all Democrat smoke and mirrors, faithfully parroted by the MSM.
There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. As pointed out more than twice as many people exited the work force for the week so how in the hell can the unemployment go down. No answer is necessary its October 2012 and der leader got his pansie ass slapped around Wednesday night and his followers in the msm couldn't spin it into a win so here comes these glorious numbers. Hallelujah we'd be saved by da massa of things
All you are going to hear from the MSM is "Unemployment rate plummets to 7.8%". If you have nothing better to do, count the number of times the Palace Guard uses the word 'plummet' today in connection with the jobless numbers.
Even MSNBC said the numbers are bull this month but Scarborough also said that most people do not understand economics and will accept the numbers at face value and give Obama credit. He's probably right about that. I wonder if BHO will even use it because the BLS report I read is total and utter crap. It makes no sense especially when you look at the charts. 870,000 more people magically claim to be employed in September than in August? My ass! Orwell would be proud.
How do you know if that 870,000 “newly employed” are not members of ACORN and their new recruits – now collecting pensions from the Federal Government?
I'm sure that when I went from unemployed to retired, that was seen as an improvement in the UE statistics. Even though I would have preferred to go back to work.
The widely reported U3 number is called the "headline number" because it is the most widely quoted one. The U6 number, which either appears in the middle of a story if at all, is perhaps a more accurate approximation of the real picture. Most people don't know that the way unemployment (and inflation) are calculated have changed over the years - I myself was not aware of it until the last few years when the info started appearing in financial/economic stories, and I probably read about these issues a lot more than the average person. The fact is that the number we call U6 today USED to be the official number (i.e. the headline number) and the calculation was changed around 1994, I think. I've read some stories that said if we calculated unemployment the way we did in the 1930s, today's number would be around 17%. Since the change was done a long time ago, it's hard to ascribe it to pure politics since the economy wasn't doing too badly then. Still, it seems that the updated way of doing it is somewhat flawed and perhaps more vulnerable to manipulation. An unintended consequence perhaps, but one being taken advantage of for political reasons. But more and more skepticism about the numbers does seem to be happening - I can recall when CNBC did not quibble about them, let alone MSNBC.