Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 09:37 am
Obama sure can still draw a crowd -

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8038/8056661970_78313d3403.jpg

I've never seen Romney do anything similar.

Cycloptichorn
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 09:42 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Certian folks will probably have a conspiracy theory about that as well.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 09:48 am
tt Romney Jobs Report Reaction: 'This Is Not What A Real Recovery Looks Like'

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney says a drop in the nation's unemployment rate to 7.8 percent "is not what a real recovery looks like."

The former Massachusetts governor responded to the September jobs report out Friday by arguing that Obama has a failed record on the economy. He pointed to millions of Americans still struggling for work, living in poverty and using food stamps to feed their families.

He also argued that the rate is low in part because some people have stopped looking for work.

The Labor Department says 114,000 jobs were added last month, helping bring the jobless rate to its lowest point since Obama took office in January 2009.

The figures are a much-needed boost for Obama after a disappointing debate performance against Romney this week.


I bet by this afternoon Romney will join the chorus of the conspiracy's theorists.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 09:52 am
Will the real Mitt please stand up

snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 10:07 am
@revelette,
I know - this guy is phoney as a 4 dollar bill. I wonder if the usual suspects here who were defending his egregious slanders against half of the country while in the cozy confines of his $50 G a plate dinner will now defend his refutation of the very same slander?
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 10:11 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Yes, But for Romney each person pays $50K so the crowd is smaller.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 11:20 am
@snood,
Naw, they learned to be deaf to his contradictions. Otherwise, they would go crazy trying to figure out who this guy really is. And I'm still not sure whether they're sane or not - considering all the hoops they jumped to support this "crazy" liar.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 11:22 am
@revelette,
From your article,
Quote:
Mitt Romney says a drop in the nation's unemployment rate to 7.8 percent "is not what a real recovery looks like."


Has he explained what a "real recovery looks like?" The question becomes, how does he plan to turn this economy around? Just by more tax cuts for the wealthy that only increases our national debt?
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 12:04 pm
Quote:
We’ve hit that moment in the election when people begin to lose their minds. Case in point, within minutes of the jobs report, Twitter filled with Republicans claiming the books were somehow cooked, the numbers aren’t real, etc.

Let’s take a deep breath. Jobs reports are about the economy, not about the election. Confusing the two leads to very bad analysis.

This is a good jobs report in a still-weak economy. The 114,000 jobs we added in September aren’t very impressive. The revisions to the last two months, which added 86,000 jobs to the total, were much more impressive. Those revisions also suggest that September’s jobs could get revised up — or, of course, down. So be careful about reading too much into that number. Still, these are, at best, good, not great, numbers.

The controversy, if it’s worth using that word, is over the unemployment rate, which dropped from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. That’s three-tenths of one percent. That’s what all the fuss is about.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: The data was not, as Jack Welch suggested in a now-infamous tweet, manipulated. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is set up to ensure the White House has no ability to influence it. As labor economist Betsey Stevenson wrote, “anyone who thinks that political folks can manipulate the unemployment data are completely ignorant of how the BLS works and how the data are compiled.” Plus, if the White House somehow was manipulating the data, don’t you think they would have made the payroll number look a bit better than 114,000? No one would have batted an eye at 160,000.

The fact is that there’s not much that needs to be explained here. We’ve seen drops like this — and even drops bigger than this — before. Between July and August the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent — two-tenths of one percent. November-December of 2011 also saw a .2 percent drop. November-December of 2010 saw a .4 percent drop. This isn’t some incredible aberration. The fact that the unemployment rate broke under the psychologically important 8 percent line is making this number feel bigger to people than it really is.

The number could, of course, be wrong. The household survey is, well, a survey, which means it’s open to error. But the internals back it up. The number saying they had jobs increased by about 800,000. That seems high, but it’s counting 582,000 who say they got part-time jobs.

There’s precedent for this. As Daniel Indiviglio notes, part-time jobs increased by 579,000 in September 2010 and by 483,000 in September 2011. It might simply be seasonal hiring. You don’t need to resort to ridiculous theories like Democrats across the country suddenly deciding to lie to surveytakers in order to help Obama.

Which leads to another argument: That U6, the broadest measure of labor-market pain, didn’t move, which should make us skeptical of the fact that U3, the normal unemployment rate, did move. That’s just misunderstanding what U6 is.

U6 is not an unemployment measure. It includes part-time workers who want full-time work. So it doesn’t count the increase in part-time work. But every measure of actual unemployment — U1, U2, U3, U4, and U5 — went down. You can see them all here. Again, there’s no mystery.

This is an encouraging report. What it tells us is that the labor market has been a bit better over the last few months than we thought, and that the recovery hasn’t slowed in the ways we feared. What the response to it tells us is that the election is driving people a little bit crazy.


Graphs at the source
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 12:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
To coin a phrase from the DNC, "The math does not add up".

114K Increase in jobs can not reduce the rate 30 basis points.

Someone needs to explain the math.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 12:09 pm
@woiyo,
To actually accuse the WH of cooking the books would be a huge huge deal, are you all sure you want to go there? Someone just said on TV it would be on Watergate proportions said it was absurd.

table

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 12:17 pm
@woiyo,
I've always been critical of how they measured unemployment in the US. Only those who continue to look for jobs are counted, and none of those who quit looking for jobs. It's estimated that the actual unemployment rate in the US is about 15%, but it's my thinking that that's going to be the new "norm" based on the world recession. Europe's unemployment rate is over 11%, and getting worse. China's factories are cutting back, because their inventory is building up. We know that if China is having problems selling their goods where their wages are almost the cheapest, it's almost impossible for other developed countries to be adding jobs.

Somebody needs to tell Romney that the 12 million jobs that he will create are all lies.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 12:20 pm
@woiyo,
114K jobs didn't reduce the rate 30 basis points.

Just because you want to claim adding 2 + apple doesn't equal 4 doesn't make your attempt at math valid. In fact your attempt at math is idiocy since it ignores that the 2 numbers come from different sources. But even more idiocy is that using only the 114K number ignores the revisions for the rest of the year which added almost 400,000 jobs to the previous months.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 12:21 pm
@woiyo,
woiyo wrote:

To coin a phrase from the DNC, "The math does not add up".

114K Increase in jobs can not reduce the rate 30 basis points.

Someone needs to explain the math.


It's almost as if you don't realize that the number of jobs added, and the UE rate, are calculated using two different surveys. I mean, you knew that before posting, right?

Cycloptichorn
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 12:29 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I am not accusing the White House of cooking up numbers. It is also apparent none of you have a clue as to how the "math" actually works (and neither do I).

So before you start mouthing off and attempting to be "smart", why not research the subject and find the answer. It's not as if you folks have anything else to do !
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 12:33 pm
@woiyo,
woiyo wrote:

I am not accusing the White House of cooking up numbers. It is also apparent none of you have a clue as to how the "math" actually works (and neither do I).

So before you start mouthing off and attempting to be "smart", why not research the subject and find the answer. It's not as if you folks have anything else to do !


Actually, I know exactly how the math works. I've been researching and studying this for years. Can you say the same?

I will say this: I used to make the exact same comments regarding the UE rate and monthly employment changes as you are making, back when Bush was in charge. I was corrected by several of the Conservative posters here (and, I believe, Thomas) when I displayed ignorance as to the relationship between monthly listed job gains and the overall UE rate.

Cycloptichorn
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 12:48 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
GREAT. Care to share or do you just want to say how smart you are?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 12:58 pm
@woiyo,
woiyo wrote:

GREAT. Care to share or do you just want to say how smart you are?


The 'math' works like this:

The number of jobs added or lost each month comes from the BLS survey of employers (about 140k of them), asking them how many people they've hired or fired over the last month. It's often revised in later months as additional surveys help the BLS understand just how many people are actually being employed.

The official Unemployment Rate, however, is derived from the BLS Household survey, which polls about 60k households a month and asks whether or not people have been newly employed or unemployed during the last month.

The Household survey showed a much, much larger amount of people reporting that they were newly employed either full- or part-time over the last month. The 114k jobs added don't reflect changes in the UE rate at all; the answer to your question is that the 'math' isn't possible, as you are looking at two statistics which are only tangentially related and attempting to draw direct results from a comparison of the two of them.

Here's a link which you might find instructive, explaining the difference between the two:

http://bls.gov/bls/empsitquickguide.htm

I would suggest spending one minute - one single minute - looking things up in Google before posting about them. I get in trouble every time I foirget to follow that simple rule.

Cycloptichorn
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 02:35 pm
@woiyo,
What a whiner. People point out you don't have a clue and you whine instead of educating yourself.

It appears Cycle has given you an answer that anyone that bothered to watch 2 minutes of video from CNBC when they released the numbers this morning would have realized.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 02:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The household survey also captures self employed persons which are never captured in the employer survey.
 

Related Topics

Why Romney Lost - Discussion by IRFRANK
Route to the sea. - Question by raprap
Two bad moments for Romney in second debate - Discussion by maxdancona
Romney vs. Big Bird - Discussion by maxdancona
Mitt Romney, the bane of Sesame Street - Discussion by DrewDad
It looks like it's Paul Ryan!!! - Discussion by maxdancona
Who will be Romney's running mate? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
When will Romney quit the race? - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Romney 2012?
  3. » Page 99
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/07/2025 at 03:23:24