7.8% ?

a777pilot · Oct 5, 2012

LOL!

Is there anyone out there in the real world that believes that the actual unemployment rate for September was down to 7.8% with just 114,000 new private sector jobs?

Just how stupid does obama think we are?

YES, I know. He was elected in 2008, but really.........................

clax · Oct 5, 2012

7.8% if I am not mistaken only refers to those collecting unemployment. Not incarcerated, former incarcerated, illegal immagrants, people who were denied unemployment or people not on employment, people not looking for a job, not wanting a job, moohing off of family members and so on. It is spin to prop up a weak presadent.

a777pilot · Oct 5, 2012

Agree.

Well said.

myp · Oct 6, 2012

It is still an improvement. The methodologies are public. You can look at broader unemployment measures which are also available if you don't like U-3, but for several reasons U-3 is the preferred measure by economists.

a777pilot · Oct 6, 2012

The U-6 did not change. I do not believe that figure of 7.8%. It is there just to help obama but it won't. The economy is a mess after almost four years of obama. This nation needs a change. We can hope for a change and then move forward.

a777pilot · Oct 6, 2012

It is still an improvement.

LOL! Yes, it is an improvement in the reported number but, and it's a big BUT, there is no improvement in the number of Americans with a full time job.

myp · Oct 6, 2012

a777pilot said:
The U-6 did not change. I do not believe that figure of 7.8%. It is there just to help obama but it won't. The economy is a mess after almost four years of obama. This nation needs a change. We can hope for a change and then move forward.

Obama does not set the number. It is the same BLS that did it back when Bush was president, when Clinton was president, when Bush was president, when Reagan was president, and on and on. The U-3 makes more sense than the U-6 for several reasons, accepted by economists on both sides of the aisle.

a777pilot · Oct 6, 2012

So you think that this administration does not try their damnest to influence these numbers?

Try an experiment. Go back to the U-3 figures for the month of SEP during the last few general election years and see if there were statistical anomalies such as this year's.

I trust this administration and this President about as far as I can drop kick a brick.

myp · Oct 6, 2012

a777pilot said:
So you think that this administration does not try their damnest to influence these numbers?

You are alluding to quite a conspiracy theory if you think the administration can affect the BLS numbers. The methodologies are public and these are economists and statisticians following evidence-based procedures. They don't just guess numbers and put them there.

a777pilot · Oct 6, 2012

Yes, I am.

myp · Oct 6, 2012

a777pilot said:
Yes, I am.

What proof do you have? If nothing substantial you come off as a nutjob (not saying you are one, but saying that that is how it comes off). Your claim without evidence probably holds as much weight as the whole birther thing or the 9/11 truther conspiracy.

Also, if they were messing with the numbers why would they increase labor force size? They could have kept it the same or near-same and could have said less jobs were made to hit 7.8% (or had the same number of jobs and made it lower than 7.8%).

a777pilot · Oct 6, 2012

LOL!

OK, if you say so. I'm a nut job.

How much do you want to bet that just after the election these SEP numbers will be "revised"?

A 0.3% point drop in an economy where the number of jobs created is well under the number needed to just keep up with the population growth is just not reasonable, or believavble.....unless you are a believer in the divinity of Bobo, the Post Turtle*.

* I'm new here so let me explain that title.

"Bobo" is from the Kenyan language and means "The Anointed One"

and

"Post Turtle" is.....

myp · Oct 6, 2012

The revisions also have methodologies. In the case of labor statistics, they are usually just delayed/late reports from companies.

Hey, I can claim the sun is purple, but that doesn't mean anything if I don't have the evidence. Statistically, your chances of being right on this without any evidence is less than a notable fraction of 1%. It is a conspiracy theory.

People on both sides of the aisle tend to do this and it is just silly. It is the anti-intellectualism of politics and it stops real and good reforms from happening. It is the reason we get crap candidate positions like those of Romney's and Obama's.

a777pilot · Oct 6, 2012

If this is all crap, then who was your pick to run for President?

I hate to ask a question like that without first giving my pick: Rick Perry. I still think he would be the best choice, but he didn't do his preparations, i.e., he should have had his back operation in JAN vice JUL.

myp · Oct 6, 2012

I don't have a pick. There is no candidate right now that really offers what I would prefer. I think that is largely a result of bad political incentives driven by massive anti-intellectualism of the type you display here with your conspiracy theory. It is in both parties and it is unfortunate because there are some reforms that would improve situations that economists and statisticians on both sides of the aisle have consistently shown through studies and agree upon.

I think this is part of the reason we keep getting crappy Congressmen/President after crappy Congressmen/President. It isn't so much the people that is the problem, but the incentives.

Now if you want to know what reforms I would like to see on the table, here are a few: greater reliance and usage of pigouvian taxes (something that Romney advisor and economist Greg Mankiw is heavily in favor of, but again no one listens because they don't understand it or they stick to their non-evidence based talking points), discussion of a progressive consumption tax to replace income, corporate, and capital gains taxes, and intellectual property right reform, especially in some areas of tech and definitely healthcare.

a777pilot · Oct 6, 2012

This is my basic tax reform:

1. No taxes at all on any income or profits of any kind.

2. No taxes on private real property on an annual basis.

I want a tax system that puts a tax on sales/consumption/transfer of money wealth, with no exceptions. No, that is not a VAT.

This tax system is for all concerned, both individuals and businesses.

Oh, by the way my thoughts that the unemployment numbers just don't make sense is vary far from your so called anti-intellectualism.

If you don't like the quality of your/our representatives, then I would encourage your to get envolved and possibility run for elective office.

myp · Oct 6, 2012

a777pilot said:
This is my basic tax reform:

1. No taxes at all on any income or profits of any kind.

2. No taxes on private real property on an annual basis.

I want a tax system that puts a tax on sales/consumption/transfer of money wealth, with no exceptions. No, that is not a VAT.

This tax system is for all concerned, both individuals and businesses.

If you don't like the quality of your/our representatives, then I would encourage your to get envolved and possibility run for elective office.

We agree on 1 but I would guess for different reasons. I disagree with 2- placing a cost on holding property can help deter people holding land for no productive use and it being transferred to someone who is likely to be more productive with it.

As for the sales tax, what specifics do you want? And why not a VAT?

By the way, both your tax positions here are far from Obama or Romney, maybe you shouldn't support them either, haha.

And I have no intention to dwelve into politics like that. I think I can be more productive and much happier outside of it. I don't think I'd get votes if I ever ran (at least not with the current constituencies) again because of the political barriers and widespread anti-intellectualism. What I will probably do is keep commenting on it though and keep trying to promote science and logical thought in my professional and online life.

a777pilot said:
Oh, by the way my thoughts that the unemployment numbers just don't make sense is vary far from your so called anti-intellectualism.

How do you figure? It is by definition a conspiracy theory. You have no scientific or evidence basis in your claim. It is complete speculation against the other possibility which is heavily supported through evidence (the methodologies are public, statistically and logistically it is pretty much impossible for any administration to do that, etc.)

a777pilot · Oct 6, 2012

It is by definition a conspiracy theory. You have no scientific or evidence basis in your claim.

I have the figures themselves*.

This 0.3% drop is unique.

* Here they are:

1980 (Carter) SEP 7.5% (-0.2%) added 113k jobs
1984 (Reagan) 7.3% (-0.2%) added 311k
1988 (Reagan) 5.6% (0) added 340k
1992 (Bush) 7.6% (0) added 35k
1996 (Clinton) 5.2% (+0.1%) added 219k
2000 (Clinton) 3.9% (-0.2%) added 125k
2004 (Bush) 5.4% (0) added 161k
2008 (Bush) 6.2% (0) lost 432k
2012 (Obama) 7.8% (-0.3%) added 114k

myp · Oct 6, 2012

a777pilot said:
I have the figures themselves*.

This 0.3% drop is unique.

* Here they are:

1980 (Carter) SEP 7.5% (-0.2%) added 113k jobs
1984 (Reagan) 7.3% (-0.2%) added 311k
1988 (Reagan) 5.6% (0) added 340k
1992 (Bush) 7.6% (0) added 35k
1996 (Clinton) 5.2% (+0.1%) added 219k
2000 (Clinton) 3.9% (-0.2%) added 125k
2004 (Bush) 5.4% (0) added 161k
2008 (Bush) 6.2% (0) lost 432k
2012 (Obama) 7.8% (-0.3%) added 114k

There are several reasons why this isn't significant:
For one and most importantly, just because it is the largest change does not mean it was rigged. There has to be some largest number in any sample size. By that sort of logic one would have said prior to this week that Clinton rigged it in 2000, Reagan rigged it in 1984 and Carter rigged in 1980.

Furthermore, September is pretty arbitrary as is having data from only 1980 onwards.

Also, a 0.3 percentage point drop from 8.1 is about a 3.7% drop. A lot of the other numbers here are a greater percentage drop. The higher you get, the greater drops you naturally expect. In other words, going from 10% to 9% is easier than 1% to 0% for mostly obvious reasons.

On top of all this there is nothing to suggest the BLS doesn't do what it always did. That they deviated from their normal methodologies.

All in all, a very weak case on your part.

I think those pushing this rigged numbers theory need to just accept U3 dropped and move on. The election isn't lost yet.

clax · Oct 6, 2012

myp said:
There are several reasons why this isn't significant:
For one and most importantly, just because it is the largest change does not mean it was rigged. There has to be some largest number in any sample size. By that sort of logic one would have said prior to this week that Clinton rigged it in 2000, Reagan rigged it in 1984 and Carter rigged in 1980.

Furthermore, September is pretty arbitrary as is having data from only 1980 onwards.

Also, a 0.3 percentage point drop from 8.1 is about a 3.7% drop. A lot of the other numbers here are a greater percentage drop. The higher you get, the greater drops you naturally expect. In other words, going from 10% to 9% is easier than 1% to 0% for mostly obvious reasons.

On top of all this there is nothing to suggest the BLS doesn't do what it always did. That they deviated from their normal methodologies.

All in all, a very weak case on your part.

I think those pushing this rigged numbers theory need to just accept U3 dropped and move on. The election isn't lost yet.

The numbers are actually indicative of their policy. How many oil and gas jobs were lost due to the moritorium on drilling, only for the united states. How many jobs would have been created if obama had not stomped out the keystone pipeline. How fewer people will be able to be hired due to the added expense of heath care. How many jobs are lost because the tax burden on the bigest employers have been increased.

Everything obama has done has been to cripple industry. Proping up novelty companies like calendra only blew dollars that he has pilfered.

You can't possably understand all of this unless you have owned a business.

7.8% ?

Similar threads