PDA

View Full Version : Unemployment Down To 8.3%


Davian93
02-03-2012, 09:57 AM
http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/02/03/january-employment-report-jobs/?test=latestnews

So...good news for Obama I guess.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-03-2012, 10:00 AM
http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/02/03/january-employment-report-jobs/?test=latestnews

So...good news for Obama I guess.

Untill the layoffs from American Airlines and Microsoft hit.

Davian93
02-03-2012, 10:02 AM
Untill the layoffs from American Airlines and Microsoft hit.

13,000 and 200 layoffs respectively from the reports I saw...hardly a drop in the bucket considering a net of 243K new jobs last month alone.

Davian93
02-03-2012, 10:09 AM
Oddly enough, this is the top story on both MSNBC and CNN but it is being buried on the Foxnews site.

Odd.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-03-2012, 10:24 AM
Truly remarkable.

And Dav, I wasn't just referring to those lay-offs alone. Every lay-off a large company does has a ripple effect.

Davian93
02-03-2012, 10:26 AM
Truly remarkable.

And Dav, I wasn't just referring to those lay-offs alone. Every lay-off a large company does has a ripple effect.

Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik. A bunch of other companies are hiring so its okay as long as they keep posting an overall net increase.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-03-2012, 10:28 AM
Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik. A bunch of other companies are hiring so its okay as long as they keep posting an overall net increase.

Hope you're right. I'm just not that optimistic. :D

Res_Ipsa
02-03-2012, 10:47 AM
Except that unemployment numbers do not count those whose unemployment benefits have run out and the number of welfare recipients. SO there is a much higher, hidden rate of unemployment.

Davian93
02-03-2012, 10:50 AM
Except that unemployment numbers do not count those whose unemployment benefits have run out and the number of welfare recipients. SO there is a much higher, hidden rate of unemployment.

Except for the way it has been calculated HAS NOT changed under Obama so its still an accurate indicator of job creation...regardless if you want to argue U6 vs U3

Also, Welfare numbers have nothing to do with unemployment.

Davian93
02-03-2012, 10:53 AM
However, since you brought up that standard GOP talking point:

U6 (marginal unemployed/underemployed, etc) is down to 15.1% from 16.1% this time last year...while U3 (the official unemployment rate) went from 9.1% to 8.3% from this time last year.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Hmm.

Res_Ipsa
02-03-2012, 10:55 AM
Except for the way it has been calculated HAS NOT changed under Obama so its still an accurate indicator of job creation...regardless if you want to argue U6 vs U3

Also, Welfare numbers have nothing to do with unemployment.

Really? Welfare has nothing to do with unemployment? We both know that is a deceptive statement as best. There are those on welfare w/ jobs and those on welfare w/out jobs. Also, those on disability + SSI factor in but are not "counted."


As to your first point, in point of fact all the Census jobs were conveniently counted to hide the real effect of job loss and growth.

Terez
02-03-2012, 10:57 AM
However, since you brought up that standard GOP talking pointIs that a standard GOP talking point? Most conservatives get upset when I try to tell them that unemployment is worse than it looks, so long as it's in the context of doing something sensible about it.

Davian93
02-03-2012, 11:13 AM
Is that a standard GOP talking point? Most conservatives get upset when I try to tell them that unemployment is worse than it looks, so long as it's in the context of doing something sensible about it.

When they're bashing Obama? Yes, I've heard/seen it a million times any time there's any good news on unemployment numbers.


Also, on the Census...shocking that temporary jobs would be accounted for in employment numbers. Given that that has no bearing on the CURRENT numbers, again, your point makes no sense. Also, those same jobs were counted in 2000 too so you make no sense.

eht slat meit
02-03-2012, 11:45 AM
Except for the way it has been calculated HAS NOT changed under Obama so its still an accurate indicator of job creation...regardless if you want to argue U6 vs U3

Also, Welfare numbers have nothing to do with unemployment.

So the question is, how much has -that- half of the equation increased since employment went down? If one is going down while the other is going up, that's not a good sign.

Davian93
02-03-2012, 11:48 AM
So the question is, how much has -that- half of the equation increased since employment went down? If one is going down while the other is going up, that's not a good sign.

Welfare numbers aren't comparable for a couple reasons to include the fact that they changed the requirements for food stamps and other assistance programs to allow more people to get them. So basically, they increased the social net during the Recession so more people could qualify.

The continuing wealth gap and the gap between production (going up continually) and pay (staying stagnant) are still there obviously...but that's just a side effect of a global economy where companies would rather outsource overseas than pay a livable wage in the US.

eht slat meit
02-03-2012, 12:06 PM
Welfare numbers aren't comparable for a couple reasons to include the fact that they changed the requirements for food stamps and other assistance programs to allow more people to get them. So basically, they increased the social net during the Recession so more people could qualify.

The continuing wealth gap and the gap between production (going up continually) and pay (staying stagnant) are still there obviously...but that's just a side effect of a global economy where companies would rather outsource overseas than pay a livable wage in the US.

I'm not trying to "compare" them, because one is a result of the other, not a comparable statistic that is set side by side with it.

If the safety needs to be widened, more dramatically for greatly increasing numbers of welfare recipients, then that indicates one of two things: extreme and rampant abuse, or a greatly increased need for said net.

I don't believe it's the former, whatever Republicans might have to say on the matter. If the safety net -really- is so widely expanded for the recession, then it's the latter, and that means that reduced unemployment is not as good a sign as it is being made out to be.

So the question is - has the so-called "safety net" radically expanded for the recession as you appear to suggest it has, or hasn't it?