Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: New Job numbers misleading  (Read 2491 times)

Offline buzzbee

  • Ken
  • Administrator
  • Galactic Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 5695
  • Gender: Male
    • N Central Pa Beekeepers Facebook Page
New Job numbers misleading
« on: December 08, 2012, 10:56:16 AM »
Citing a drop in the unemployment rate,they fail to bring to  the forefront that the drop is because of the labor participation rate. The amount of people actually employed in this country has been in a steady decline since 2008.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Offline AllenF

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 8192
  • Gender: Male
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2012, 03:53:33 PM »
I work a guy every once in a while.   Pay him cash, no taxes taken out, nothing to report.   He has been off unemployment for over 2 years now.  Been years since he worked steady last.   I know the government ain't keeping up with him anymore.   So is he still part of the unemployed by the govt or just removed from the list?   

Offline buzzbee

  • Ken
  • Administrator
  • Galactic Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 5695
  • Gender: Male
    • N Central Pa Beekeepers Facebook Page
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2012, 04:03:39 PM »
I would say he is probably not counted as employed.Or unemployed.  :-\

Offline BlueBee

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 4587
  • Gender: Male
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2012, 02:09:16 AM »
Like most government stats, this one also seems to be near fantasy too.  They say this is created from a monthly survey of households?  I’ve never been called, nor do I know of anybody who’s ever been called.  Yeah, I know in a normal distribution, you can infer the overall behavior from a small sample size.  Somehow I doubt this is anything close to a normal distribution.  There are just so many of these gov stats that are so unbelievable (or manipulated) that they are near meaningless because nobody believes them anymore. 

Offline buzzbee

  • Ken
  • Administrator
  • Galactic Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 5695
  • Gender: Male
    • N Central Pa Beekeepers Facebook Page
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2012, 06:29:51 AM »
This was not a  phone poll. It was actual numbers of people on payrolls paying taxable wages and the rest can be garnered via public assistance rolls. It is not hard to follow a SS number from employed to unemployed,to off the radar.Or on Food stamps.
  Tax revenues from withholding can be the follow up to this stat.

Offline FRAMEshift

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2012, 09:46:56 AM »
Citing a drop in the unemployment rate,they fail to bring to  the forefront that the drop is because of the labor participation rate. The amount of people actually employed in this country has been in a steady decline since 2008.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Last month the reported unemployment rate (for October) dropped and the labor participation rate went UP.  Did you comment on how great that was?
I may have missed it.  

The number of people employed has been growing since mid 2009.   The huge losses in late 2008 and early 2009 are responsible for the overall decrease in employment.  In short, it really was Bush's fault. :)
"You never can tell with bees."  --  Winnie-the-Pooh

Offline buzzbee

  • Ken
  • Administrator
  • Galactic Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 5695
  • Gender: Male
    • N Central Pa Beekeepers Facebook Page
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2012, 10:01:32 AM »
The stats show a steady decline with only a couple short term upticks in labor participation rates. At some point in time Obama has to own it.
His massive spending did not produce results. Obama will start to  to take it's toll with reduced hours for a lot of employees.

Online kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 15552
  • Gender: Female
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2012, 01:53:37 PM »
Quote
Last month the reported unemployment rate (for October) dropped and the labor participation rate went UP

octobers numbers have been revised. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57543708/why-to-question-adps-latest-job-numbers/

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline BlueBee

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 4587
  • Gender: Male
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2012, 02:05:05 PM »
This was not a  phone poll. It was actual numbers of people on payrolls paying taxable wages and the rest can be garnered via public assistance rolls. It is not hard to follow a SS number from employed to unemployed,to off the radar.Or on Food stamps.
  Tax revenues from withholding can be the follow up to this stat.
Not to nit pick BuzzBee, but the link you posted (graph of labor force participation rate) WAS computed from a monthly current population survey as I said.  That is “a monthly survey of households conducted by conducted by the Bureau of Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”  Like I said, this “data” is highly suspect for the reasons I stated.  http://www.bls.gov/cps/

I might add, Frameshift is right.

Online kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 15552
  • Gender: Female
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2012, 05:09:34 PM »
Quote
I might add, Frameshift is right.

he might have been if the numbers were right but anyone who watches this month to month knows that the numbers are always revised.  after you look at the revision and the numbers under the numbers, it's kind of hard to get excited about people dropping out of the work force or taking part time work just to get by. 

+ we are losing manufacturing jobs again.  this is, in part, because Europe is in recession again.
.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline sterling

  • Queen Bee
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Gender: Male
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2012, 04:46:28 PM »
Like most government stats, this one also seems to be near fantasy too.  They say this is created from a monthly survey of households?  I’ve never been called, nor do I know of anybody who’s ever been called.  Yeah, I know in a normal distribution, you can infer the overall behavior from a small sample size.  Somehow I doubt this is anything close to a normal distribution.  There are just so many of these gov stats that are so unbelievable (or manipulated) that they are near meaningless because nobody believes them anymore.  

Frameshift believes them.
And the uninformed still believe it's Bush's fault. :roll:

Offline BlueBee

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 4587
  • Gender: Male
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2012, 05:30:27 PM »
Last month the reported unemployment rate (for October) dropped and the labor participation rate went UP.  Did you comment on how great that was?
Frameshift, their 'fair and balanced' "news" source missed that one.  Go figure.

I agree with our right wing friends that the economy is still in bad shape and Obama is to blame for some.  I'm just wondering WHOM they're going to credit when the economy does turn around?  We know they won't credit Obama, so who will get the credit?  The Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Leprechaun at the end of the Rainbow? 

Offline luvin honey

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Gender: Female
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2012, 05:47:23 PM »
Last month the reported unemployment rate (for October) dropped and the labor participation rate went UP.  Did you comment on how great that was?
Frameshift, their 'fair and balanced' "news" source missed that one.  Go figure.

I agree with our right wing friends that the economy is still in bad shape and Obama is to blame for some.  I'm just wondering WHOM they're going to credit when the economy does turn around?  We know they won't credit Obama, so who will get the credit?  The Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Leprechaun at the end of the Rainbow? 
Great question :) Maybe it could be a truce---we won't blame Bush if they start crediting Obama?  :evil:
The pedigree of honey
Does not concern the bee;
A clover, any time, to him
Is aristocracy.
---Emily Dickinson

Online kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 15552
  • Gender: Female
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2012, 05:55:35 PM »
when there is something to credit him for, i'll be happy to do it.  so far, he seems bent on doing all the things we already know don't work.  for such a smart guy to be so dumb, you'd be tempted to wonder if he didn't have an underlying plan that didn't include our doing well?
.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline iddee

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 6530
  • Gender: Male
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2012, 06:22:39 PM »
""Last month the reported unemployment rate (for October) dropped and the labor participation rate went UP.  Did you comment on how great that was? ""

Whoop de doo...
Gas went from 1.89 to 3.89. Last month it went all the way down to 3.29. Are we supposed to jump for joy?
Show me a true 6% unemployment and then I might get excited.


""I'm just wondering WHOM they're going to credit when the economy does turn around?  We know they won't credit Obama, so who will get the credit?""

Probably whoever is in at the time. Most likely a conservative.

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*

Offline luvin honey

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Gender: Female
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2012, 06:27:53 PM »
So you do blame Bush, then, since it all fell apart WHILE he was in office?

I don't think the Prez controls gas prices. I think we should all get used to higher prices, although it has been nice to see it below $3.40 around here again :)
The pedigree of honey
Does not concern the bee;
A clover, any time, to him
Is aristocracy.
---Emily Dickinson

Offline iddee

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 6530
  • Gender: Male
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2012, 06:50:15 PM »
It was 1.89 when Bush left.
"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*

Offline sterling

  • Queen Bee
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Gender: Male
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2012, 07:20:11 PM »
So you do blame Bush, then, since it all fell apart WHILE he was in office?

I don't think the Prez controls gas prices. I think we should all get used to higher prices, although it has been nice to see it below $3.40 around here again :)

The Prez we have now may not be to blame for high gas prices but when they got high while Bush was Prez I rememmber the Dems standing around gas pumps and blaming Bush for the high prices and how it was destroying our ecomnomy and the democratic news media showing them ranting about it being Bushes Fault.

It fell apart after the Dems took over the House and Senate and ran um for four years. 2006

"Get used to it". Thats what our energy sec. said cause he wants prices up there with Europes prices. $10.00

Online kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 15552
  • Gender: Female
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2012, 07:44:07 PM »
Quote
So you do blame Bush, then, since it all fell apart WHILE he was in office?

did you blame clinton for the recession the bush inherited?

recessions are normal.  this presidents reaction is not.  or maybe it's the new normal.....

 
Quote
It fell apart after the Dems took over the House and Senate and ran um for four years. 2006
certainly spending went up.

the blame they have for the current downturn begins with the community reinvestment act of the 70's, the broadening of that act in the '90's and then the not realizing the problem (barny frank...'everything with fannie and freddy is fine') even though bush asked them 17 times to look into the finances of fannie and freddie. 

neither bush nor obama are responsible directly for what happened.  they are each responsible for their reactions.  to be honest, i don't think either did such a hot job, but what obama has done since, has compounded the problem and guaranteed disaster. 
another really big problem is that we have been running for 3 years not without a budget.  it is very likly that we are in far worse trouble financially than most of us know because all spending is being done by continuing resolution with increases fed by the slush fund....better known as printing and borrowing. 

it's going to fall apart as surely as the world of a gambler who borrows from pay day lenders fall apart. 

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline sterling

  • Queen Bee
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Gender: Male
Re: New Job numbers misleading
« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2012, 11:12:52 AM »
Quote
So you do blame Bush, then, since it all fell apart WHILE he was in office?

did you blame clinton for the recession the bush inherited?

recessions are normal.  this presidents reaction is not.  or maybe it's the new normal.....

 
Quote
It fell apart after the Dems took over the House and Senate and ran um for four years. 2006
certainly spending went up.

the blame they have for the current downturn begins with the community reinvestment act of the 70's, the broadening of that act in the '90's and then the not realizing the problem (barny frank...'everything with fannie and freddy is fine') even though bush asked them 17 times to look into the finances of fannie and freddie.  

neither bush nor obama are responsible directly for what happened.  they are each responsible for their reactions.  to be honest, i don't think either did such a hot job, but what obama has done since, has compounded the problem and guaranteed disaster.  
another really big problem is that we have been running for 3 years not without a budget.  it is very likly that we are in far worse trouble financially than most of us know because all spending is being done by continuing resolution with increases fed by the slush fund....better known as printing and borrowing.  

it's going to fall apart as surely as the world of a gambler who borrows from pay day lenders fall apart.  



You are right. But most don't want to look for the real cause of the problem it's easier to blame Bush.

But where are we headed now?
 There are 87 million people depending on the Federal Govt. some are working for the Govt. as in a job making more then their private working counterpart. Some are drawing some type of benefit such as food stamps, welfare. medicaid, ect. That number is increasing daily.
There are 109 million people working private type jobs paying for the 87 million.
Our Govt. is borrowing around 1.5 trillion a year with no accountability because we do not have a budget since Obama took office in 2009.
The 109 million tax payers are paying for 60% of our spending. Obama is borrowing 40% of our spending 1.5 trillion.
Our debt is now over 16 trillion. How long can we survive as a country with this type of governing.
 
« Last Edit: December 11, 2012, 12:59:49 PM by sterling »

 

anything