Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  AP survey: Outlook for 2011 economy is brightening (Page 4)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 10 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   AP survey: Outlook for 2011 economy is brightening
AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 8156
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 21, 2012 05:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It would truly be remarkable if merely by the virtue of Congress changing hands jobs were immediately dropped. No the problem causing the dip was well underway prior to the Democratic majority in Congress. We would have to all be extremely dull-minded to even consider such an ill-informed argument.

quote:
The real unemployment number, U3, is about 11%..not 8.5%. This is depression territory. Millions more Americans are simply "INVISIBLE" to the Bureau of Labor Statistics because they've stopped looking for work and no longer qualify as
"unemployed" under the definition.

That's false. They are not invisible to the BLS. The same way you produced the chart we can't see, you could produce one regarding the employment participation rate, or the employment to population ratio. I know they're bad. I just also know that they're going to rebound barring any major catastrophe.
http://www.portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp has a chart showing U6, and it shows that it's coming down in 2011. That site cites the BLS as the source of their information.

quote:
Notice, the U6 number was trending DOWNWARD under Bush right up until demoscats took control of both Houses of Congress in 2007. AND, under O'Bomber, the U6 number skyrocketed.

But neither Democrats taking control of Congress nor Obama's Presidency initiated the change. There's NO way to sell that to an informed person. It's simply impossible. We know why the economy tanked, and it doesn't have to do with Obama being in office or Democrats controlling Congress.

quote:
The fact is acoustic that Americans DO NOT agree with the spin you're spouting here.

The FACT here is that you're the only person spinning false data. You don't want to accept the recovery that is occurring and you continue to make the mistake of blaming the wrong causes for the financial crisis in the first place. That's the only absolute fact in this matter.

For an education in the financial crisis, I can give you some leads.

In this proposal for reforming the housing market from the Obama administration, it is proposed that Fannie and Freddie are wound down. (You'll notice that it says, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac strayed farthest from their core business in 2006 and 2007..." That was neither during the Obama administration nor during the time that the Democrats ran both houses of Congress) It also goes into (in a rather superficial, and easy-to-understand way) the causes of the financial crisis. No doubt this document was informed by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

If it's too much to ask that you peruse a 32 page document filled with simple language, you could read Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/financial-crisis-narrative-flunks-reality-check-jonathan-weil.html

or the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203721704577156963813900028.html

or Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomgroenfeldt/2011/12/26/break-up-citi-and-prosecute-the-ceo/

Etc.

There's plenty of information out there about the crisis for which neither Democrats controlling Congress nor Obama being President could rationally be held to account.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 8156
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 21, 2012 05:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I didn't address your poll, but it doesn't really make any difference to me. We don't consult average Joe-on-the-street for our economic data, do we? No, we look at measured growth or decline in real data.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 6686
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 02, 2012 11:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Some people are simply incapable of learning.

One percent growth
We have seen the future, and it doesn't work
John Hayward
02/02/201219

The Congressional Budget Office released its annual Budget and Economic Outlook this week. Last year’s was a tragedy, but the new one is a horror story. The crushing burden of government debt and persistent unemployment – which, contrary to the carefully massaged statistics released for public consumption, has really been in double digits for years, when the collapsing work force is taken into account – will conspire with skyrocketing taxes after the expiration of the Bush tax rates, and leave us with only 1.1 percent projected GDP growth next year.

That will leave us with one of the slowest economies in the developed world. We might eke out a small lead over the United Kingdom, and Japan is still grappling with an outright recession. Unfortunately, the CBO tends to underestimate the negative economic effects of high taxation, so we might end up with less than 1 percent growth, when all is said and done.

The government is still spending nearly a quarter of the total U.S. economy every year, and trillion dollar deficits have become the new normal. In fact, during only one year in the CBO’s 10-year projection do we get below a $1 trillion deficit, and it’s not by much. The government will be spending over $6 trillion a year by 2022. And none of that accounts for the ticking time bomb of unfunded entitlement liabilities, due to Social Security and Medicare, which Washington deals with by officially ignoring them.

Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), whose American Freedom and Opportunity Act would extend the existing tax rates, released an angry statement reminding Americans that President Obama promised us something very different upon taking office:

In his 2009 State of the Union Address, President Obama pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Not only will the President fall short of that goal, but he will be double where he promised the American people where we would be. It’s not a surprise that President Obama cannot meet his pledge. After all, it is his spending sprees, his stimulus, and his health care law that are bankrupting Washington and sending our economy into shambles. Pointing fingers will not work anymore. It’s his economy and his bureaucracy.

This economic recovery is anemic at best. We may have emerged from the formal definition of a recession, but just barely. Unfortunately, the conditions are not exactly ripe for growth, which is reflected in CBO’s downward revision of its economic growth estimates. Yet, the Obama Administration policies of overspending, overtaxing and overregulating has created this anti-business climate of uncertainty.

While the President’s stimulus was supposed to jump start the economy and keep unemployment from going above 8 percent, America has known nothing except unemployment rates higher than 8 percent since it became law. Now, CBO expects unemployment to stay above that rate both this year and next. Despite the mountains of evidence showing that stimulus spending does not work, President Obama had the audacity to come before the House in September and ask for Stimulus Part Two. He made similar requests in his State of the Union just last week.

And then Obama dropped his pricey new mortgage refinancing plan on us, which he plans to finance with more deficit spending, plus another economy-crushing tax increase. His other big tax-raising brainstorm, the so-called “Buffett Rule” for a 30 percent Super Alternative Minimum Tax on millionaires, would raise a piddling $36 billion at most, while adding mountains of complexity to the enormous tax code that is already strangling our One Percent Growth economy.

Look at the tax code from the other direction: it costs Americans a good $300 billion per year to comply with it, and some estimates say it will be closer to $500 billion by the end of the CBO’s ten-year forecast period. Wouldn’t it be great to have a big chunk of that cost returned to the private-sector economy for productive uses? But no, we’re going to make it even worse, to squeeze a few more bucks out of the private economy.

The 2022 envisioned in that CBO report will never happen. We’ll never get there. There isn’t enough money to pay for our monstrous federal government. External factors, from war and natural disaster to increased debt service costs from credit rating degradation, stand poised to make the CBO’s grim estimate into a best-case scenario. How can they accurately forecast the domestic effects of the increasingly likely collapse of the Euro?

Discussing even more spending programs is delusional insanity. We have already reached the point where Big Government America is eating itself alive. Efforts to squeeze more revenue out of this exhausted economy are killing it, resulting in reduced revenue from flat growth… followed by ever more shrill demands for more vigorous squeezing.

Macro-economics and the discussion of public debt often involve numbers so huge that it makes our eyes water. Here are some simple numbers to ponder: the health of the private sector calls for growth of about 3 percent, to drive job creation commensurate with population increase. Financing our government without massive deficits would take more like 5 percent, and actually resolving the debt crisis would demand 7 percent growth or more, sustained over many years. Our government-controlled economy is completely incapable of reaching any of those growth levels. There is no way to make this equation work without making the government dramatically smaller.

America should carefully ponder those difficult growth targets before entertaining the notion of another four years under the people who got us to the “new normal” of One Percent Growth. They’re talking about buying a shiny new saddle and spurs for a work horse that’s about to drop dead in its tracks.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49242

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted February 02, 2012 01:37 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
funnily in europe, where they are taking "austerity" measures like those suggested by our conservatives, the recession is DEEPENING steadily. only in germany and others who took a strong govt lead is the recession basically OVER. germany forestalled major layoffs by commanding a 4-day work week with the 5th covered by national unemployment insurance. result=a productive workforce still in place and an economy that appears bullet-proof.

meawhile the uk and ireland are looking at rising unemployment and prices, massive cuts to services and raised taxes...greece suddenly has sick and dying people uncovered by any insurance, and 50% of spain's youth are unemployed.

i have said before, and i firmly believe, that a good deal of our "unemployed" are actually just "under the table" where they don't have to look for work because they ARE working. for cash.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 6686
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 02, 2012 04:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
For many years, Germany has had the strongest economy in Europe.

Germany has been loaning money to the other Sociaist states and so has the US through the World Bank and IMF.

But, as Thatcher said..."Socialism is fine until you run out of other people's money".

Now, don't go all hyperbolic and claim citizens of Greece are dying because they can't get treated by doctors.

As far as who is unemployed here, since you brought up youths of Spain...perhaps it would do you good to take note of the facts that unemployment among American teens is over 25% and for black teens...about 50%.

Thanks O'Bomber!

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 8156
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 03, 2012 11:48 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Trying to get out ahead of the good news today, huh? Another solid month of growth. Another decline in the official unemployment rate.

The Human Events article is a travesty to intellectual reporting.

IP: Logged

NosiS
Moderator

Posts: 184
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 03, 2012 11:53 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for NosiS     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Please, don't ask me to post the numbers I'm about to reference. It's all on the BLS website and you can do the research yourself.

The unemployment rate is lowered for the fifth month in a row but I smell something funny.

Now, admittedly I don't really know a whole lot about these statistics and I could be making a mistake in what I'm trying to read. Regardless, I feel the need to communicate my interpretation.

In every unemployment rate for each single occupation type the rate has increased from December to January. Every occupation type except one: production. But even this occupation type is only a subgroup of the main group "Production, transportation, and material moving occupations". Even this main group is posting an increase in unemployment rate.

It seems to me that the only thing driving the decrease in the unemployment rate for January is the Labor Force Participation Rate.

It seems like there's a not-so-funny numbers game being played on us.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 8156
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 03, 2012 12:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Are you referring to this chart?: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea07.htm

This chart: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm says the percentage of the population participating has decreased, though the number of employed has increased.

IP: Logged

NosiS
Moderator

Posts: 184
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 03, 2012 03:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for NosiS     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, the addition of over 200,000 jobs is great news!

The decrease of the unemployment rate, though, just comes off as a bit inaccurate. I don't know how they calculate these numbers and I don't really even care all that much. It's somewhat interesting but I'd rather invest my time on other things.

I do, however, think it important to see that even the CBO is having trouble figuring out the reason for the unusually sharp decline in participation in the labor force since 2007.

Here's a link to that:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/latest-congressional-budget-outlook-2012-2022-released

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm well aware of the kind of complexity it would mean to manipulate these statistics based on a political advantage. I am also, however, aware of a pervading spirit of boastfulness in the media and those who would seem to take advantage of the numbers in these reports.

I think it's better to take things with a grain of salt.

The unexplained drop in participation in the labor force is, I think, quite significant. The trend has been mostly downward since the turn of the century. If it is maintained, the last four years will have seen the greatest change, positive or negative, of participation in the work force on record.

That deserves a good amount of reflection.

IP: Logged

amelia28
Knowflake

Posts: 2529
From:
Registered: Aug 2011

posted February 03, 2012 04:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for amelia28     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Are you referring to this chart?: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea07.htm

This chart: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm says the percentage of the population participating has decreased, though the number of employed has increased.


Did you know that unemployment statistics do not take into account the vast number of people who have given up seeking employment. If you are not actively seeking employment then you are not part of the unemployment statistics LOL.

Just like kimo studies include people who haven't had cancer in 6 months and claims that these people were cured even if the cancer came back 6 months and half later resulting in the persons death.

A professor I had as an undergrad in the University of Miami once said that she graduated from university of California were she took a class on statistics that revolved around deceptive statistics: manipulating statistics to make results look like you want them to basically.

IP: Logged

amelia28
Knowflake

Posts: 2529
From:
Registered: Aug 2011

posted February 03, 2012 04:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for amelia28     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by NosiS:
Well, the addition of over 200,000 jobs is great news!

The decrease of the unemployment rate, though, just comes off as a bit inaccurate. I don't know how they calculate these numbers and I don't really even care all that much. It's somewhat interesting but I'd rather invest my time on other things.

I do, however, think it important to see that even the CBO is having trouble figuring out the reason for the unusually sharp decline in participation in the labor force since 2007.

Here's a link to that:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/latest-congressional-budget-outlook-2012-2022-released

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm well aware of the kind of complexity it would mean to manipulate these statistics based on a political advantage. I am also, however, aware of a pervading spirit of boastfulness in the media and those who would seem to take advantage of the numbers in these reports.

I think it's better to take things with a grain of salt.

The unexplained drop in participation in the labor force is, I think, quite significant. The trend has been mostly downward since the turn of the century. If it is maintained, the last four years will have seen the greatest change, positive or negative, of participation in the work force on record.

That deserves a good amount of reflection.


A professor I had as an undergrad in the university of Miami once said that she graduated from university of California were she took a class on statistics that revolved around deceptive statistics: manipulating statistics to make results look like you want them to basically.


Oh but conspiracy theories are silly. There are no evil people in the world. The Holocaust never happened and if it did it is most definitely never going to repeat itself as the cliche "history repeats itself" has no basis, is just a fabrication.

IP: Logged

amelia28
Knowflake

Posts: 2529
From:
Registered: Aug 2011

posted February 03, 2012 04:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for amelia28     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Not to mention that these so called new jobs that are been created are McDonalds and Walmart jobs which are designed to keep poor people surviving and dependent on the government..mean while the government is making it harder and harder for small businesses to stay open and prosper and the middle class continues disappearing.

IP: Logged

amelia28
Knowflake

Posts: 2529
From:
Registered: Aug 2011

posted February 03, 2012 04:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for amelia28     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
OH and speaking of obamacare...what is really going to end up happening as a result of this?

Less jobs!!!! bc small businesses and even big corporations like Walmart will not be able to afford to provide healthcare for all their employees:
http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/10/26/walmart-endorse-obamacare-cant-save-employees-skyrocketing-insurance-costs

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 6686
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 04, 2012 09:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Just a few facts are all it takes to topple leftist arguments that O'Bomber's economy is creaating jobs in the private sector.

In fact, there are far fewer Americans working in America than when O'Bomber began infesting the White House...millions fewer in fact. In reality, O'Bomber hasn't created a single job and is in the hole about 2+ million jobs.

Another fact leftists just can't get through their heads is that a falling unemployment number does not necessarily mean more people have found jobs. It could mean that but in this case it doesn't mean that at all. MORE AMERICANS have given up on finding jobs. That means they're out of the statistics the Bureau of Labor Statistics count as unemployed. So, when fewer Americans are being counted as unemployed, the unemployment rate..as calculated by the BLS goes down.

Another fact leftists don't want to think about: Right now, leftists are pounding their desks screeching about how much the economy has improved. Little do they know..or even care..that the numbers they are seeing and preening over are GUESSES and are in fact "Seasonally adjusted", not actual. Up to 50% of the non farm labor numbers are estimates only. That's the reason there's backwards revision of those numbers in future months.

The Office of Management and Budget is forecasting an unemployment rate of 9% by the end of 2012 and lasting through 2013. That's a days old forecast btw so it's not OLD NEWS but hot off the presses news.

Just to put things in perspective for leftists.

February 4, 2012
When Obama Came into Office...
By Yossi Gestetner

Every time you challenge Democrats on the bad shape of the economy three years (and $5 trillion) into Barack Obama's presidency, you get hit with something like "when Obama came into office, the economy was so bad," etc.

So let's remember exactly how things were when Obama came into office.

When Obama came into office, the Democrats concluded two years of controlling both the House and Senate for the first time in over a decade. Until they showed up, everything was quite all right. All hell broke loose after their anti-business policies started kicking in, and things became worse when the Democrat won the White House, too. **Yep, I've been telling you for the better part of a year that the US economy went straight down when demoscats took control of both Houses of Congress in January 2007!**

When Obama came into office, he didn't show up as a sitting governor. Instead, he was a voting member of the majority party in the Senate -- the majority party, remember, who created the mess -- and he only made things worse once in the White House. See for yourself:

...When Obama came into office, the economy had just concluded a year of 0.0% growth. In Obama's first year, however, the economy shrank by 3.5%.

...When Obama came into office, we had a mess due to the housing market. However, the worst year for new home sales in U.S. history took place in Obama's third year, not Bush's last.

...When Obama came into office, we concluded Bush's worst year of banks closings under Bush, with 25 banks shuttered in 2008 due to insolvency. Obama's best year of bank closings (2011) saw 97 banks go under.


...When Obama came into office, the economy had just concluded a year that lost 1.4 million fewer jobs than what the economy lost in Obama's first year.

...When Obama came into office, we had concluded a year (2008) where the unemployment rate was on average 5.8% for the year. The best UR month on Obama's watch is above eight percent.

When Obama came into office, we were losing a half a million jobs a month. However, just as the waters in New Orleans started receding before Bush did anything, jobs losses in the U.S. were bound to recede even if Obama did not lift a finger. The only question was how fast jobs would come back.

A rule in modern economics suggests that the steeper the downturn, the faster the comeback. But even if you look only at Obama's "good" job months (largely since we elected a do-nothing Congress which by default tied and limited Obama's hands...), the job gains are less than what President Ford -- with an economy and population 35 years smaller than now -- delivered at this time following the steep downturn of the mid-1970s, and it's a drop in the bucket compared to what Reagan gave us after the steep 1981 downturn.

When Obama came into office with an economy of 133.5 million non-farm jobs, his economic team projected that at the end of 2010, we would have 137 million of those jobs if we were to follow Obamanomics. However, at the start of the current year, we had fewer than 133 million jobs -- which is four million jobs short of what we were supposed to have a year ago!

Finally, when Republican President Warren Harding came into office in early 1921, the economy was in a depression, with GDP (then called GNP) being down almost four times more than the recent downturn. However, when Harding concluded his third year in office after pushing through steep tax cuts, the unemployment rate was lower than the pre-depression levels despite the fact that more people came into the workforce. Now, by contrast, despite millions giving up on looking for jobs, the unemployment rate is still higher than "when Obama came into office."

In brief, things might not have been exactly hunky-dory when we got Obama...but they're a heck of a lot worse now that we have him.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/when_obama_came_into_office.html

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 6686
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 04, 2012 09:53 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Perhaps this is what makes you uneasy about the BLS report NosiS. 1,200,000 Americans simply disappeard from the workforce between December 2011 and January 2012.

February 3, 2012
January Unemployment Report: The Devil is in the Details
Scott Strzelczyk

Despite all-around giddiness by the stock market investors and speculators, and the lemmings in the media January's unemployment numbers are much worse than reported. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which ought to be referred to as the Ministry of Propaganda, said that non-farm payrolls added 243,000 jobs and the unemployment rate dropped from 8.5% to 8.3%. This comes as no surprise as we are in an election year and the incumbent needs good economic news to increase his likelihood of re-election.

The devil is in the details. From December to January, 1.2 million people just disappeared from the labor force. That has dropped the participation rate from 64% to 63.7%, a new thirty year low. Look even further and the numbers get worse. The part-time workforce increased by 699,000 jobs while full time jobs increased by 80,000. Ninety percent of all "new" jobs came from part-time work.

The most interesting aspect is the fuzzy math. The civilian population is 242.2 million people. If you apply the long-term average civilian labor force participation rate of 65.8% you get 159.4 million people in the work force. But, the BLS reports we there are only 154.5 million in the work force. A paltry 5 million person difference!

Add the five million people to the 12.758 million reported unemployed by the BLS and there are 17.776 million unemployed people. Divide 17.776 by 154.5 and you get and 11.5% unemployment rate. Yet, the BLS reports an 8.3% unemployment rate. The 3.2% difference between the real unemployment rate and the BLS unemployment rate also set a thirty year high.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/january_unemployment_report_the_devil_is_in_the_details.html

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 8156
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 05, 2012 06:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Regarding the participation rate, according to the BLS, the participation rate is higher than it was when the economy was recovering under Reagan. I think that's a positive sign overall.

quote:
Did you know that unemployment statistics do not take into account the vast number of people who have given up seeking employment. If you are not actively seeking employment then you are not part of the unemployment statistics LOL.

I know that this is an untrue statement that has been addressed in this very thread.

quote:
A professor I had as an undergrad in the University of Miami once said that she graduated from university of California were she took a class on statistics that revolved around deceptive statistics: manipulating statistics to make results look like you want them to basically.

I agree that statistics can be manipulated all sorts of ways, and can otherwise also be misconstrued.

quote:
Another fact leftists just can't get through their heads is that a falling unemployment number does not necessarily mean more people have found jobs. It could mean that but in this case it doesn't mean that at all. MORE AMERICANS have given up on finding jobs. That means they're out of the statistics the Bureau of Labor Statistics count as unemployed. So, when fewer Americans are being counted as unemployed, the unemployment rate..as calculated by the BLS goes down.

Nope. It does, in fact, mean that people have found jobs. That's what the BLS has reported. 23 straight months of job gains.

quote:
Another fact leftists don't want to think about: Right now, leftists are pounding their desks screeching about how much the economy has improved. Little do they know..or even care..that the numbers they are seeing and preening over are GUESSES and are in fact "Seasonally adjusted", not actual. Up to 50% of the non farm labor numbers are estimates only. That's the reason there's backwards revision of those numbers in future months.

It's true that there are adjustments, but it's also true that these adjustments have happened all along the 23 months of straight job gains. The adjustments haven't resulted in overall losses.

quote:
**Yep, I've been telling you for the better part of a year that the US economy went straight down when demoscats took control of both Houses of Congress in January 2007!**

No, this is new spin you've been trying to promote, which I've already proven to be patently untrue in this very thread. The economy tanked as no result of Democrats controlling Congress.

quote:
From December to January, 1.2 million people just disappeared from the labor force. That has dropped the participation rate from 64% to 63.7%, a new thirty year low.

Back to Reagan times.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 6686
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 05, 2012 11:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Excuse me!

Fewer Americans are working today than at any time since 1985.

Which means there's far more Americans unemployed...since the population has increased since 1985. The unemployed just don't show up because once they stop looking for a job, the BLS no longer counts them as "unemployed".

It's really easy to fool leftists. They want so badly to believe in their little Messiah O'Bomber that they'll believe anything.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 8156
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 06, 2012 06:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You are excused.

Employment-Population Ratio http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Select 1980 to 2012 in the change output options. A higher percentage of the population is working than was under the worst of the recession Reagan dealt with.

Labor Force Participation Rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Once again, select 1980 to 2012. The chart only goes up to 2010, but it's in line with the recession under Reagan.

quote:
The unemployed just don't show up because once they stop looking for a job, the BLS no longer counts them as "unemployed".

Right, but they are still counted overall by the BLS. We already addressed this in the top post of this page. I informed you that your source used the BLS to obtain it's numbers, which means those people are being counted. This does, too; and this. That means that those people are known, and counted as part of the population I referenced above in the Employment to Population ratio.

You seem to want to think that this "greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression" is something quickly and easily gotten over. That doesn't make any sense. That our economy doesn't show worse ratios than Reagan is pretty extraordinary, because this was a much worse predicament, and employment is the last indicator to rebound in an economic recovery. Ultimately, there is no way to talk down an economy in recovery. You can't argue your way into being right on this. The data speaks for itself. 23 months of growth.

quote:
They want so badly to believe in their little Messiah O'Bomber that they'll believe anything.

I think you're engaging in projecting here again, Jwhop. The data disagrees with your position. That would make you the one wanting to believe something that isn't true.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 6686
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 06, 2012 06:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Even your own chart disagrees with your post acoustic.

Notice the fall off in the "labor participation rate" under O'Bomber! Sad, simply sad how leftists will grasp at straws to protect their little leftist Messiah O'Bomber.

Sad too that O'Bomber's labor participation rates don't begin to approach the Bush era.

Yeah, those disappeared discouraged workers...1.2 million between December and January do show up. But not in the unemployment number leftists and O'Bomber want to quote.

They show up in the BLS U-6 number which now shows more than 15% of the American workforce are unemployed, underemployed or working part time because they can't find a full time job!

You need to face facts acoustic. O'Bomber is a royal screw-up in virtually every area of presidential responsibility.

Oh wait, now I remember. O'Bomber never takes responsibility for anything that's wrong in America.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 6686
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 07, 2012 08:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
TrimTabs Explains Why Today's "Very, Very Suspicious" NFP Number Is Really Down 2.9 Million In Past 2 Months
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/03/2012

We have examined the nuance of the euphoric jobs data this morning from every angle and by now there should be plenty of 'information' for investors to make their own minds up on its credibility. However, the avuncular CEO of TrimTabs, who despite channeling Lewis Black lately, likely knows this data a little better than the average Jim on the street having collected tax witholdings data for the past 14 years, is modestly apoplectic at the adjustments. In one of his more colorful episodes, and rightfully so, Charles Biderman notes that "Either there is something massively changed in the income tax collection world, or there is something very, very suspicious about today’s BLS hugely positive number," adding, "Actual jobs, not seasonally adjusted, are down 2.9 million over the past two months. It is only after seasonal adjustments – made at the sole discretion of the Bureau of Labor Statistics economists – that 2.9 million fewer jobs gets translated into 446,000 new seasonally adjusted jobs." A 3.3 million "adjustment" solely at the discretion of the BLS? And this from the agency that just admitted it was underestimating the so very critical labor participation rate over the past year? Finally, Biderman wonders whether the BLS is being pressured during an election year to paint an overly optimistic picture by President Obama’s administration in light of these 'real unadjusted job change' facts. Frankly, in light of recent discoveries about the other "impartial" organization, the CBO, we don't think there is any need to wonder at all.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/trimtabs-explains-why-todays-very-very-suspicious-nfp-number-really-down-29-million-past-2-mont

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 6686
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 07, 2012 08:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Explaining Yesterday's Seasonally Adjusted Nonfarm Payroll "Beat"
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/04/2012

Since there still is confusion regarding yesterday's whopping "surge" in non-farm payrolls, which represented a 243K jump in the Establishment survey (of which 490K was temp jobs, same as in the Household Survey where temp jobs soared by a record 699K), yet only to arrive at an employment number last seen ten years ago, when the US population was about 30 million lower (think about that: 30 million increase in population and no change in the total employed), here is the final explanation of what happened yesterday.

As everyone knows by now, January is when the BLS imposes its annual seasonal adjustment revision (more on that in a second) for the previous January-December period. What this manifests itself most directly in, is the divergence between the Nonadjusted January number of the establishment survey of any given year and the Unadjusted number. And while the January adjustment is always substantial, it is the fact that the so-called beat was entirely based on assumptions that makes yesterday's NFP number so meaningless, and hardly the basis to assume that the US economy has taken off....
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/explaining-yesterdays-seasonally-adjusted-nonfarm-payroll-beat

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 6686
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 07, 2012 08:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Biderman’s Daily Edge 2/3/2012: Is BLS Data Skewed?
Feb 03

The biggest headline for all financial media today is that the US economy added a much more than expected 243,000 jobs in January, and 446,000 jobs over the past two months. That is many more new jobs than our estimate of less than 50,000 for January and our estimate of 90,000 for December and January.

Our estimate of a slowly growing economy is based primarily upon daily income tax collections. Either there is something massively changed in the income tax collection world, or there is something very suspicious about today’s Bureau of Labor Statistics hugely positive number. We continue to check and recheck our analysis of income tax collections. We are aware that another service believes that incomes are growing faster than we do. So far we have not found any errors or discrepancies in our work, but if we do, we will let you know.

The BLS each month reports two data series, but only one jobs number is reported by the media. Actual jobs outstanding, not seasonally adjusted, are down 2.9 million over the past two months. It is only after seasonal adjustments – made at the sole discretion of the Bureau of Labor Statistics economists that 2.9 million less jobs gets translated into 446,000 new seasonally adjusted jobs for January and December.

No one I know has any idea as to how the BLS does this seasonal adjustment. BLS historic data is changed almost every month until the income tax returns for each year are available three years in arrears. In other words, the BLS currently has accurate data for 2008 and before....
http://trimtabs.com/blog/2012/02/03/bidermans-daily-edge-232012-is-bls-data-skewed/

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 6686
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 07, 2012 08:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Why the official 8.3 percent unemployment rate is a phony number—and what it means for Obama’s reelection
By James Pethokoukis
February 3, 2012

The January jobs report is out and it seems pretty strong, at least superficially. The unemployment rate fell to 8.3 percent from 8.5 percent, the lowest rate since February 2009. And the economy added 243,000 jobs, the most since April 2011.

But does anyone believe an “official” unemployment rate of 8.3 percent really gives an accurate picture of the U.S. labor market? Even though the unemployment rate fell, so did the labor force participation rate (as more Americans became discouraged and gave up looking for work). Here’s what that means:

1. If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7 percent then vs. 63.7 percent today—the U-3 unemployment rate would be 11.0 percent.

2. But let’s not go all the way back to January 2009. In January 2011, the unemployment rate was 9.1 percent with a participation rate of 64.2 percent. If that were the participation rate today, the unemployment rate would be 8.9 percent, instead of 8.3 percent. As an analysis from Hamilton Place Strategies concludes, “Most of the shift of the past year is due not to the improvement in the labor market, but the continued drop in participation in the labor force.”....
http://blog.american.com/2012/02/why-the-official-8-3-percent-unemployment-rate-is-a-phony-number-and-what-it-means-for-obamas-reelection/

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 6686
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 07, 2012 09:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Implied Unemployment Rate Rises To 11.5%, Spread To Propaganda Number Surges To 30 Year High
Submitted by Tyler Durden
02/03/2012

Sick of the BLS propaganda? Then do the following calculation with us: using BLS data, the US civilian non-institutional population was 242,269 in January, an increase of 1.7 million month over month: apply the long-term average labor force participation rate of 65.8% to this number (because as chart 2 below shows, people are not retiring as the popular propaganda goes: in fact labor participation in those aged 55 and over has been soaring as more and more old people have to work overtime, forget retiring), and you get 159.4 million: that is what the real labor force should be. The BLS reported one? 154.4 million: a tiny 5 million difference. Then add these people who the BLS is purposefully ignoring yet who most certainly are in dire need of labor and/or a job to the 12.758 million reported unemployed by the BLS and you get 17.776 million in real unemployed workers. What does this mean? That using just the BLS denominator in calculating the unemployed rate of 154.4 million, the real unemployment rate actually rose in January to 11.5%.

Compare that with the BLS reported decline from 8.5% to 8.3%. It also means that the spread between the reported and implied unemployment rate just soared to a fresh 30 year high of 3.2%. And that is how with a calculator and just one minute of math, one strips away countless hours of BLS propaganda......

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/implied-unemployment-rate-rises-115-spread-propaganda-number-surges-30-year-high

IP: Logged

NosiS
Moderator

Posts: 184
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 07, 2012 09:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for NosiS     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks, jwhop.

I wish I could laugh at these things but the way in which these numbers are taken so lightly just isn't funny to me. I normally shy away from the statistical approach because 1) I err easily in math and 2) I get overcome by the heartlessness that it can sway our perspectives. But I have only recently come to find its fruits, as bittersweet as they are to me.

IP: Logged


This topic is 10 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright 2000-2013

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a