Jobs up, Unemployment down

[lions2011]

still have 8.1 million also working part time who want full time work...that number is still down from the 9.3 million at this time last year.

Januarys report will tell the tale a little clearer.

 

[johnny2x2x]

A large number of the people "leaving" the work force are Baby boomers who are retiring, so they wont be coming back. Some people might reenter the work force, but not enough to boost the unemployment rate all that much.

What's funny is the "do nothing" Republicans in Congress who have proudly stated over and over they are not doing anything are scrambling to find some way to take credit for the good numbers and the improving economy. They're going to look pretty silly this fall.

Good News for America, of course lately that usually means bad news for Republicans. Of course the FOX News meme on this was that it's seasonal workers, ignoring the fact that these numbers are always seasonally adjusted. A good step, but a lot more work to do.

Some are retirements, but many are people off unemployment that can't find work and have stopped looking. Additionally, there are a lot of people that want work, but have stopped looking because they are discouraged. If they return to look, then the rate will spike.
I talked to an economist this morning about the numbers and he said they will probably be adjusted downward because of seasonal workers. Another thing to watch is gas prices. A large spike could seriously slow the economy.

Well the economist you talked to is a fucking idiot then if he doesn't know the jobs numbers are seasonally adjusted already. They take that into account, always have. Maybe he should head back to school.

 

[tycobb420]

Some are retirements, but many are people off unemployment that can't find work and have stopped looking. Additionally, there are a lot of people that want work, but have stopped looking because they are discouraged. If they return to look, then the rate will spike.
I talked to an economist this morning about the numbers and he said they will probably be adjusted downward because of seasonal workers. Another thing to watch is gas prices. A large spike could seriously slow the economy.

Well the economist you talked to is a fucking idiot then if he doesn't know the jobs numbers are seasonally adjusted already. They take that into account, always have. Maybe he should head back to school.

Considering he teaches college...and has a PhD.

Numbers are always readjusted and adjusted. Sometimes the country is in a recession and no one knows it until it's over because economists can't figure things out quickly enough.

 

[johnny2x2x]

Well the economist you talked to is a fucking idiot then if he doesn't know the jobs numbers are seasonally adjusted already. They take that into account, always have. Maybe he should head back to school.

Considering he teaches college...and has a PhD.

Numbers are always readjusted and adjusted. Sometimes the country is in a recession and no one knows it until it's over because economists can't figure things out quickly enough.

But the numbers are already seasonally adjusted, so they are just as likely to be adjusted in a positive way as a negative way and it will have little to do with seasonal hires. Any economist would know this, unless they are on FOX News or something. And January numbers typically come in better than December numbers historically.

 

[tycobb420]

Considering he teaches college...and has a PhD.

Numbers are always readjusted and adjusted. Sometimes the country is in a recession and no one knows it until it's over because economists can't figure things out quickly enough.

But the numbers are already seasonally adjusted, so they are just as likely to be adjusted in a positive way as a negative way and it will have little to do with seasonal hires. Any economist would know this, unless they are on FOX News or something. And January numbers typically come in better than December numbers historically.

Numbers are always adjusted and being adjusted. It's the initial report that gets all the attention. Or perhaps he has a better feel for something coming down the pike based on his research. He said we are likely to see continued sluggishness and that Dec. will probably be an aberation. BTW: the best way to determine that someone is uninformed is when they start launching Fox News comments. Tends to happen when someone is stretching and does not know how to respond to facts.

 

[johnny2x2x]

A large number of the people "leaving" the work force are Baby boomers who are retiring, so they wont be coming back. Some people might reenter the work force, but not enough to boost the unemployment rate all that much.

What's funny is the "do nothing" Republicans in Congress who have proudly stated over and over they are not doing anything are scrambling to find some way to take credit for the good numbers and the improving economy. They're going to look pretty silly this fall.

Good News for America, of course lately that usually means bad news for Republicans. Of course the FOX News meme on this was that it's seasonal workers, ignoring the fact that these numbers are always seasonally adjusted. A good step, but a lot more work to do.

Some are retirements, but many are people off unemployment that can't find work and have stopped looking. Additionally, there are a lot of people that want work, but have stopped looking because they are discouraged. If they return to look, then the rate will spike.
I talked to an economist this morning about the numbers and he said they will probably be adjusted downward because of seasonal workers. Another thing to watch is gas prices. A large spike could seriously slow the economy.

Just admit you were talking out of your ass, you already backed pedaled from this statement, just admit you were repeating a Right Wing talking point about this report. You're only like the 4 millionth person in the last 2 days to suggest seasonal workers were the reason for the bump in the numbers, when that is obviously 100% false, the only difference with you is you pretended you heard from an economist buddy who is a PHD, as if you were trying to add weight to an obviously false statement. Where did you really hear it?

 

[tycobb420]

Some are retirements, but many are people off unemployment that can't find work and have stopped looking. Additionally, there are a lot of people that want work, but have stopped looking because they are discouraged. If they return to look, then the rate will spike.
I talked to an economist this morning about the numbers and he said they will probably be adjusted downward because of seasonal workers. Another thing to watch is gas prices. A large spike could seriously slow the economy.

Just admit you were talking out of your ass, you already backed pedaled from this statement, just admit you were repeating a Right Wing talking point about this report. You're only like the 4 millionth person in the last 2 days to suggest seasonal workers were the reason for the bump in the numbers, when that is obviously 100% false, the only difference with you is you pretended you heard from an economist buddy who is a PHD, as if you were trying to add weight to an obviously false statement. Where did you really hear it?

From my colleague...an economist,...and I'm not backpeddling...I don't make up sources...Don't get mad at me if you don't understand this stuff. Get mad at yourself for not understanding how the process works. Econs adjust and readjust all the time. I'll take a economist's word over someone on a message board anytime. Another one I know used to joke that her fellow economists don't know what they're talking about half the time anyway....and one month that looks good or bad looks the opposite a few months down the road.

 

[johnny2x2x]

But the numbers are already seasonally adjusted, so they are just as likely to be adjusted in a positive way as a negative way and it will have little to do with seasonal hires. Any economist would know this, unless they are on FOX News or something. And January numbers typically come in better than December numbers historically.

Numbers are always adjusted and being adjusted. It's the initial report that gets all the attention. Or perhaps he has a better feel for something coming down the pike based on his research. He said we are likely to see continued sluggishness and that Dec. will probably be an aberation. BTW: the best way to determine that someone is uninformed is when they start launching Fox News comments. Tends to happen when someone is stretching and does not know how to respond to facts.

That's a back pedal, you went from it's seasonal workers (which is an obvious RW talking point and bullshit) to "better feel based on his research." You don't think people know they adjust things? They adjusted the November number the same day the released the December number, but it had nothing to do with seasonal workers. Pretty weak there man and now you're in for a dime, in for a dollar it seems.

Your "buddy" went from repeating a RW talking point word for word(which incidentally no economist would make that mistake), to now having his own research that maybe he feels December was a blip. You got caught, be a man and admit you are just repeating the RW talking points you've heard all over the internet, RW radio, or FOX News this weekend, because there is no fucking way a PHD economist would not know that seasonal hiring has already been accounted for in these numbers.

 

[tycobb420]

Not a back peddle. I said it was going to be adjusted. Then, I reiterated it. The accusation of RW talking point is something tossed by someone that does not have any other response.

ADP usually overestimates the numbers. Folks are counted that should not be. Last December, it reported 297,000 new jobs and then it was revised to 113,000. In June, they reported 157,000 and then the number turned out to be 57,000.

 

[johnny2x2x]

Just as often they are adjusted up and it's not because of seasonal workers.

"I talked to an economist this morning about the numbers and he said they will probably be adjusted downward because of seasonal workers."

That's your quote, that's what you are claiming an economist told you. That's a total Bullshit Statement that I can't believe any economist would make. Now maybe he would say something about the seasonal adjustment not being large enough, that would be a stretch too, because they usually are criticized for the opposite, but it would at least demonstrate he had a basic working knowledge of how they report these numbers.

 

[tycobb420]

Just as often they are adjusted up and it's not because of seasonal workers.

"I talked to an economist this morning about the numbers and he said they will probably be adjusted downward because of seasonal workers."

That's your quote, that's what you are claiming an economist told you. That's a total Bullshit Statement that I can't believe any economist would make.

Well, he did. All I know if while you're pumping gas, he's teaching class.

 

[tycobb420]

Here, this is from CNN:

Jobs in retail and the food services were also on the rise, as were positions for couriers and messengers. In spite of the Labor Department's seasonal adjustments, some analysts caution that these positions could be related to holiday hiring.

 

[johnny2x2x]

Just as often they are adjusted up and it's not because of seasonal workers.

"I talked to an economist this morning about the numbers and he said they will probably be adjusted downward because of seasonal workers."

That's your quote, that's what you are claiming an economist told you. That's a total Bullshit Statement that I can't believe any economist would make.

Well, he did. All I know if while you're pumping gas, he's teaching class.

That's your finish? LOL "but he did, he really really did".

You just made a complete fool out of yourself, you'd have been better off just admitting you were wrong or saying maybe you misunderstood him, I'd at least have a little respect for that. But, your sticking with your obvious BS story, you're telling us that you're not man enough to nut up and say my bad. I hope your "PHD economist buddy" has a good night tonight playing cards with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

 

[tycobb420]

Well, he did. All I know if while you're pumping gas, he's teaching class.

That's your finish? LOL "but he did, he really really did".

You just made a complete fool out of yourself, you'd have been better off just admitting you were wrong or saying maybe you misunderstood him, I'd at least have a little respect for that. But, your sticking with your obvious BS story, you're telling us that you're not man enough to nut up and say my bad. I hope your "PHD economist buddy" has a good night tonight playing cards with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Sorry could not resist, but you do sound like a low wage worker with your word usage. See my last post per CNN. Obviously, there are others out there that subscribe to that interpretation. I will accept your apology at anytime... if you are indeed man enough to give it...but I doubt it...

 

[johnny2x2x]

Here, this is from CNN:

Jobs in retail and the food services were also on the rise, as were positions for couriers and messengers. In spite of the Labor Department's seasonal adjustments, some analysts caution that these positions could be related to holiday hiring.

Technically they are right, but your "economist buddy" would have stated it more like these guys did, not "probably be adjusted downward because of seasonal workers" But, I'll concede he could have said that, so I apologize.

Still seems like a dubious thing for a PHD economist to say because it makes a leap that they'll adjust this down, they are just as likely to adjust it up.

 

[tycobb420]

Here, this is from CNN:

Jobs in retail and the food services were also on the rise, as were positions for couriers and messengers. In spite of the Labor Department's seasonal adjustments, some analysts caution that these positions could be related to holiday hiring.

Technically they are right, but your "economist buddy" would have stated it more like these guys did, not "probably be adjusted downward because of seasonal workers" But, I'll concede he could have said that, so I apologize.

Still seems like a dubious thing for a PHD economist to say because it makes a leap that they'll adjust this down, they are just as likely to adjust it up.

He is suspicious by nature and thinks the job numbers have been flubbed for decades. Perhaps I worded what he said poorly.

 

[johnny2x2x]

Bump.

They adjusted the job growth numbers up for November and December, looks like your economist friend was dead wrong as was the Republican talking point about these numbers a month ago.

What's the Republican Talking Point this month with even better numbers?

 

[martmay]

they keep shrinking the work force....add the 2.5 million to 3 million they eliminate since Obama took office and the unemployment is still way over 10%

 

[johnny2x2x]

they keep shrinking the work force....add the 2.5 million to 3 million they eliminate since Obama took office and the unemployment is still way over 10%

There's the talking point eh? Ever here about the record number of baby boomers retiring and thus leaving the work force? Not to mention the 243,000 jobs created has nothing to do with people leaving the work force.

 

[martmay]

they keep shrinking the work force....add the 2.5 million to 3 million they eliminate since Obama took office and the unemployment is still way over 10%

There's the talking point eh? Ever here about the record number of baby boomers retiring and thus leaving the work force? Not to mention the 243,000 jobs created has nothing to do with people leaving the work force.

retirees? are you serious? they dont county them, LOL...good grief you're stupid

"In January, 2.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged
from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They
were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey.""