RavenHawk Posted October 5, 2012 #1 Share Posted October 5, 2012 The unemployment rate for September dropped 3 tenths to 7.8 with the creation of 114,000 jobs. These numbers just don’t jive. The experts have stated that we need 400,000 jobs per month to start making a difference and about 125,000 just to keep unemployment level. The report goes on to say that the number of unemployed persons (at 12.1 million), decreased by 456,000 for September. I would think that number of jobs created would be equal to decreasing the number of unemployed. That tells us that 342,000 people have just fallen off the rolls. 342,000 jobs have just disappeared. When you reduce the number of available jobs, then you can have a reduction of the unemployment rate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 5, 2012 #2 Share Posted October 5, 2012 naturally they jive: people are starting to run out of benefits and therefore quit looking for jobs, hence not unemployed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted October 5, 2012 #3 Share Posted October 5, 2012 sure they are still unemployed, whether they still get benefits or not, look for a job or not, irrelevant. they don't have a job, therefore unemployed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 5, 2012 #4 Share Posted October 5, 2012 sure they are still unemployed, whether they still get benefits or not, look for a job or not, irrelevant. they don't have a job, therefore unemployed. You want to change the way the US of A always tallied unemployment just because it benefits your favorites? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted October 5, 2012 #5 Share Posted October 5, 2012 just because it benefits your favorites? why don't you tell me who my favorites are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 5, 2012 #6 Share Posted October 5, 2012 why don't you tell me who my favorites are. let me guess: anybody not Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 5, 2012 #7 Share Posted October 5, 2012 in related news: Part-Time Gain Pushes U.S. Joblessness to Three-Year Low Britt Zaragoza is among a growing army of part-time workers helping to drive down the jobless rate in the U.S. The 48-year-old single mother found employment as a receptionist at a Columbus, Ohio, law firm in August after searching for two years. Not working a full day gives her the flexibility to take care of her 10-year-old son and pursue a career in catering. “I knew sooner or later something would come up and thank God it did,” she said. “It was the perfect hours that I was looking for so I jumped on it real quick.” A drop in unemployment, no matter the source, means more people are earning paychecks, which in turn may boost the consumer spending that accounts for about 70 percent of the economy. Joblessness unexpectedly fell to 7.8 percent in September, the lowest since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, from 8.1 percent, according to Labor Department issued today in Washington. Read more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted October 5, 2012 #8 Share Posted October 5, 2012 sure they are still unemployed, whether they still get benefits or not, look for a job or not, irrelevant. they don't have a job, therefore unemployed. The government only counts them if they are collecting unemployment benefits, so after 9 months (or whatever it is) and you're no longer collecting benefits, you don't count. Great system isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 5, 2012 #9 Share Posted October 5, 2012 The government only counts them if they are collecting unemployment benefits, so after 9 months (or whatever it is) and you're no longer collecting benefits, you don't count. Great system isn't it? But it never has been any different, ever since unemployment insurance started that is how they were counted. How many people are really without a job and how many need food stamps despite having a job was never of any relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashotep Posted October 5, 2012 #10 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I think in the future if your unemployment rate is less than 10% then your doing pretty good. Too many jobs have been shipped out of this country. Your not going to buy a new car working at Burger King, unless your the manager, or buying much of anything else. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted October 5, 2012 #11 Share Posted October 5, 2012 The government only counts them if they are collecting unemployment benefits, so after 9 months (or whatever it is) and you're no longer collecting benefits, you don't count. Great system isn't it? yea, great sys. lol. that makes me believe, there is a lot more ppl out of work than statictic shows. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supervike Posted October 5, 2012 #12 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Where are the unemployed? Judging from where I live, people have not stopped going out to eat, car and real estate sales have stayed steady, and I see help wanted ads all around. I do not know anyone personally who wants to work, that doesn't already have a job. I'm not saying it's not bad out there, but maybe those folks are in the wrong job market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted October 5, 2012 #13 Share Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) Where are the unemployed? Judging from where I live, people have not stopped going out to eat, car and real estate sales have stayed steady, and I see help wanted ads all around. I do not know anyone personally who wants to work, that doesn't already have a job. I'm not saying it's not bad out there, but maybe those folks are in the wrong job market. I suggest you visit your local unemployment office. Are you expecting unemployed to roam the streets? Help wanted ads are generally fake. There are zillions of people unemployed. I was one of them eariler this year. Edited October 5, 2012 by ninjadude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggins Posted October 5, 2012 #14 Share Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) sure they are still unemployed, whether they still get benefits or not, look for a job or not, irrelevant. they don't have a job, therefore unemployed. You are wrong. The survey is conducted using statics of those who HAVE JOBS. It has always been conducted this way. Edited October 5, 2012 by Jiggins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted October 6, 2012 #15 Share Posted October 6, 2012 And everything just keeps falling Obarry's way...ISN'T IT WONDERFUL? Maybe he'll walk on water for us soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted October 6, 2012 #16 Share Posted October 6, 2012 This must be obamas October surprise to himself. The government only counts them if they are collecting unemployment benefits, so after 9 months (or whatever it is) and you're no longer collecting benefits, you don't count. Great system isn't it? Exactly. The homeless guy on the street doesn't count as unemployed anymore. Therefor it is quite obvious that the jobless numbers are much higher. If you are out of benefits and move into your moms basement you no longer count as unemployed. The real rate is probably twice whatever they tell us. Help wanted ads are generally fake. ??? The last thing I want to do is field bs phone calls while I'm busy running the business. If I don't need help I don't need that distraction. What would be the point? There are zillions of people unemployed. Wow. That says a lot for the administration. You should tell Biden to use that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 6, 2012 #17 Share Posted October 6, 2012 This must be obamas October surprise to himself. Exactly. The homeless guy on the street doesn't count as unemployed anymore. Therefor it is quite obvious that the jobless numbers are much higher. If you are out of benefits and move into your moms basement you no longer count as unemployed. The real rate is probably twice whatever they tell us. The homeless guy on the street NEVER counted, but you may twist it as you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted October 6, 2012 #18 Share Posted October 6, 2012 The homeless guy on the street NEVER counted, but you may twist it as you like. Maybe at one time he did but if he has no job then that makes him jobless. I know how it works but unemployed is unemployed. So if the hobo isn't counted in the 7.8 then the 7.8 isn't entirely true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 6, 2012 #19 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Maybe at one time he did but if he has no job then that makes him jobless. I know how it works but unemployed is unemployed. So if the hobo isn't counted in the 7.8 then the 7.8 isn't entirely true. That means that all Republican administrations have lied to us too? Shocking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted October 6, 2012 #20 Share Posted October 6, 2012 That means that all Republican administrations have lied to us too? Shocking! I was just making a technical point. Not looking for a blame game argument. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 6, 2012 #21 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I was just making a technical point. Not looking for a blame game argument. You sure have an awkward way of doing that, especially with the "anymore" at the end of the sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted October 6, 2012 #22 Share Posted October 6, 2012 You sure have an awkward way of doing that, especially with the "anymore" at the end of the sentence. Rub your eyes. The word is argument. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synchronomy Posted October 6, 2012 #23 Share Posted October 6, 2012 CNN reported this article last night. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers are deliberately manipulated. http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/welch-unemployment-rate/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 6, 2012 #24 Share Posted October 6, 2012 CNN reported this article last night. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers are deliberately manipulated. http://money.cnn.com....html?hpt=hp_t2 I don't suspect that they were manipulated as in changed, that would be to obvious. But I can imagine that certain parts of the industry, interested in Obama winning, have hired two part timer instead of one full time employee to up the numbers last month. The drastic increase in part time employment would speak for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted October 6, 2012 Author #25 Share Posted October 6, 2012 The Dept of labor considers part-time jobs the same as full time jobs. A closer look at those 114,000 probably includes part-time seasonal labor. But also those entering the workforce for the first time. So you have more than 342,000 people leaving the workforce. These people are probably children (in their 20s & 30s) moving back home or wives not bringing in that second income. Putting more burden on those that are working. There are 12.1 million that receive benefits. It is this number that the unemployment rate is keyed off of. By doing the math, 114,000 only gives a rate change of .009% but 456,000 gives .03 (actually .037). I guess they felt that they'd be pushing it by rounding up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now