Jump to content

The Unemployment #'s Reported At 7.8%. Remember Those? Ca Wasn't Reporting.


Guest Deisel
 Share

Recommended Posts

And we learn,

Calif. official whose agency under-reported unemployment stats was Obama campaign donor

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/calif-official-whose-agency-under-reported-unemployment-stats-was-obama-campaign-donor/#ixzz2A2441IB6

isn't it lovely how lies and deciet can be spread around by ones Donors, so easily. Seriously dems, is this really the man you want leading our country? Is this really the levels you are willing to go to spin your way into a win?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Unemployment will eventually appear to be only 5% in the future because once a person's unemployment runs out you are no longer considered unemployed. the job gains every month have not been high enough too lower the unemployment rate.

If you want a job move to Texas the place I work at has been growing since 2008 they have hired locally 6,000 new employee since 2008. while other companies in other parts of the country had been laying people off since 2008.

Big Oil is hiring

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should read the articles to make sure you understand them before you post a sensational headline like that.

While this story maybe scandalous, it doesn't have anything to do with the 7.8 number from September. This happened last week.

yep. This had nothing to do with the last unemployment report.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Oct. 11, the federal government reported that weekly jobless claims were down significantly, suggesting a dramatic national increase in economic growth and a steep decline in layoffs. Jobless claimsicon1.png, according to the Labor Department, had fallen by 30,000 to 339,000, their lowest level since February 2008.

The good news for the Obama administration spread quickly, with outlets like CNN and Bloomberg declaring, “Jobless claims fall to four-year low.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/calif-official-whose-agency-under-reported-unemployment-stats-was-obama-campaign-donor/#ixzz2A8JOpOil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Oct. 11, the federal government reported that weekly jobless claims were down significantly, suggesting a dramatic national increase in economic growth and a steep decline in layoffs. Jobless claimsicon1.png, according to the Labor Department, had fallen by 30,000 to 339,000, their lowest level since February 2008.

The good news for the Obama administration spread quickly, with outlets like CNN and Bloomberg declaring, “Jobless claims fall to four-year low.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz2A8JOpOil

Then let that be the issue. Instead, you ran with the unemployment report instead of the weekly jobless claims....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then let that be the issue. Instead, you ran with the unemployment report instead of the weekly jobless claims....

I'm sorry kicker, but Unemployment #'s and weekly Jobless report is 1 in the same, is it NOT? Although they are packaged differenty, they still portray the same data. THOSE without a job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry kicker, but Unemployment #'s and weekly Jobless report is 1 in the same, is it NOT? Although they are packaged differenty, they still portray the same data. THOSE without a job.

No, they aren't the same.

Weekly jobless claims is how many people filed for unemployment this week. It has nothing to do with the unemployment rate. There could have been 500,000 people laid off in a week but 2,000,000 people hired.

Jobless claims are not used to calculate the unemployment rate.

But the bigger problem with your argument is that you are using a reporting discrepancy in the second week of October to account for an unemployment figure (7.8) that pertains to the month of September.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GDP is up. Unemployment is down. Construction contracts are up. The numbers are good.

It's always kind of funny to me to watch hardline conservatives attack data.

GDP is 1.3. Phoney unemployment #'s are just that. Phoney. Constructions up, a tad. Compared to an average construction cycle it would be labeled a colossal failure. On all these #'s..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GDP is 1.3. Phoney unemployment #'s are just that. Phoney. Constructions up, a tad. Compared to an average construction cycle it would be labeled a colossal failure. On all these #'s..

My assumption is that you think the unemployment numbers are cooked due to people dropping out of the workforce and other such factors, but those are taken into account with U4, U6, and other such rates and those are all down as well. Face it, the economy is improving no matter how much you hate that for whatever reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah construction is up but most of those buildings sit empty. waiting for someone with romney's vision to put a store there. most of those shops, are shilling, shoney.

No, new construction contracts are up, not existing buildings.

actually unemployment is virtually unchanged in 2012 and is only down 1.4% since January, 2011

http://portalseven.c...ent_rate_u6.jsp

I meant since 2008.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the U-3 numbers are misleading at best

the U-6 numbers are a far more accurate picture of the employment situation in our country. Here is the link I had in my post that shows those numbers.

http://portalseven.c...ent_rate_u6.jsp

I understand. I find it dubious that we're suddenly parsing out U4-U6, rather than U3, when those are the more negative indicators. It seems like selective data mining to smear Obama.

I get that things are not rosy. I do not get denying progress, or the idea that Obama has ruined anything that was not already ruined when he took office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand. I find it dubious that we're suddenly parsing out U4-U6, rather than U3, when those are the more negative indicators. It seems like selective data mining to smear Obama.

I get that things are not rosy. I do not get denying progress, or the idea that Obama has ruined anything that was not already ruined when he took office.

You've always had a more optimistic view on the economy. Sometimes you need to just recognize that we are not even remotely healthy and the current pace is not acceptable.

I'll refer this thread to you...

******** I know how to call them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand. I find it dubious that we're suddenly parsing out U4-U6, rather than U3, when those are the more negative indicators. It seems like selective data mining to smear Obama.

I get that things are not rosy. I do not get denying progress, or the idea that Obama has ruined anything that was not already ruined when he took office.

The shift away from reality was when the Feds took the data collection away from the states. Everyone knew the fix could and would be in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...